The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-28
MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP
The Idea Formally Adopted by
the Union for Practical
Progress.
CONGRESS IS APPEALED TO.
An Address for Legislation to
Help the Unemployed Is
Endorsed.

The Union for Practical Progress took
up the question of municipal ownership
OF public utilities at its meeting last night.
john N. Reynolds, its vice-president,
who has. been filling the chair since the
death of c. c. Terrill, opened the meeting
by reading as preliminary, and to secure
the unions Endorsement communication
to individual Congressman which he had
prepared, and in which certain legislation
was urged for an extensive system of pub
lie works for the benefit of the unemployed
of the country, and to be paid for by an
issue of paper money in the form of bills
receivable for all public dues. The same
com munication had already been Endorsed
by the Labor Council.
In this communicate ton Mr.. Reynolds
did not omit to charge that legislation in
the past had been largely in favor Of
capitalize bankers and corporations
and against the interests of struggling
labor, and he recalled some instances from
the special census agent who collected the
mortgage figures to show that the great
bulk of the wealth is owned by very small
percentage of the people, while the great
mass suffer poverty.
The kinds of public works he advocated
were canals, irrigation bitches, docks and
postal-tele graph system, Apprehending
that there might be some objection in the
minds OF the Congressman receiving it to
the idea of a greenback issue of "bills re-
ceivable," he had argued in favor of it at
some length and alluded to past currency
issues by the Government, particularly
that for carrying ON the civil war.
No immediate action on the part of the
union was just then urged by Mr.. Rey-
nolds, so it's attention was at once called to
the subject of municipal ownership, Rev.
M. J. Ferguson being the first speaker.
Mr.. Fergusson's argument was for the
purpose OF proving that the municipal
ownership OF gas, water and street-transit
services would be better for the public
than private ownership, seeing that the
public is chiefly concerned. It's health
and safety are involved, he said, whereas
private corporations operated such utili-
ties simply FOR what money there was in
them, regardless OF the considerations due
to the public.
To support his position he quoted some
strong reasoning. from the New York Re-
corder and the Review of Reviews. He
opposed the policy of the turning over of
public property such as streets, to private
corporations for their own particular pc
cuniary benefit, and criticized the methods
by which street railway and other COM
panies were capitalized.
The originators of the Market-street
Railway Company, he said, did not put
dollar into the scheme. The plan is usually
to issue stock and bonds, and, obtaining
other peoples money on them, construct
the road, the capitalization being accom-
plished by stocks and bonds representing
several times the actual cash invested, and
the public being expected to pay the divi-
dends and interests upon such inflated
capitalization. He therefore resolved:
If we preferred to manage our own affairs
rather than farm them out to private corpora
tions it would be both much better and much
cheaper for us and the users Of such utilities,
and also the men employed would be much bet
ter treated. 1t would be cheaper for us, because
we would not have to pay the dividends and in
terest on watered capital. The service would
be far superior, because we could get the full
worth of our money, instead of as now having
a great part OF it go to the money-lenders and
bondholders.
They had an experience in point In the city
of Tacoma. 1t thought it could not construct
its own water works, so it allowed private par
ties to do 1T. In the course of time the water COM
pany owned the town. pretty much the same
as our water monopoly does this town. Finally
the city undertook to buy out the water COM
pany. All it cost the latter to build its plant
and lay its service was $500 700; but the city
had to pay. 100000 to get its own water
three times the cost it was able to reduce its
water rates SO per cent in a short time.
Again, the safety of human life would be
better regarded. The Marketstreet Railway
Company has killed quite a few people in this
City. 1t has been said that it costs much less to
kill people and to pay damages than to go to the
expense of necessary precautions. Human life
is cheaper than car-fenders. The Brooklyn
trolley cars have killed 104 people, because
appliances were not adopted for the prevention
of fatalities.
In many countries municipal ownership is,
to some extent, recognized. England, Ger
many and Australia, for instance, and quite
number of cities in this country own and oper-
ate their own water and treet-Gghting SER
vices The city in which lived owned its own
water and gas, and IT cost US only half for our
gas what 1t cost other cities. writer in the
August Arena has shown this to be the expe-
rience of all cities enjoying municipal owner
ship.
Mr.. Ferguson met a common objection
that municipal ownership would result in
too much government and greater posi-
bility of political corruption by saying
running of the public utilities, and the
interest the people would have in them
would serve to prevent corruption.
He was followed by Rev. Joseph E. Scott,
who Endorsed everything Mr.. Ferguson
said. james s. Reynolds. however,
opposed the idea on the ground that NUM-
cipal ownership had not always demon
otdlou tuS dUiilty VI tue pubic 10 Operape
and manage its own business, and he used
this City's management of its streets and
the cost of building the new City Hall to
bear him out.
Mr.. Reynolds did not oppose the essen
tial justice of the principal of municipal
ownership itself, but doubted its feasibil-
ity. The real reason for his antagonism,
he explained. was that municipal owner
ship would simply sidetrack the true
reform which he saw in the adoption of the
single tax. He assumed that if the service
of public utilities was improved the differ
ence OF cost would simply go to the land
lord in the shape of rent. The elimination
of the landlord-the doing away with the
necessity Of paying rent-he argued. was
the first thing that should be advocated,
He said:
The $19,500,O 900 which we give to the land
lords OF San Francisco for mere ground service
is enough to pay all the dividends on watered
stock and interest on all the bonds for every
utility. we have, and we could ride free and
have Tree water and gas, and everything we
need in the way OF public service.
DR.. Scott met the last speakers logic
with some sarcasm. 'The people own and
operate their own postal system, judicial
system, school system, tax system, cleo
tions system and prison system" he re-