The morning times., 1895-11-12
atterward furnished by the city at cost
MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP


of $50.
MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP.
We have seen that enormous savings
accrue wherever city does its o WI Light
ing, and tue query ARISES: Why these
differences? For answer Professor Par.
sons furnishes the following substantial
reasons:
L. "A public pla Mt does not have to pay
dividends on watered stock.
2. ut does not have to pay dividends
even on the actual investment
8. 1T does not have to retain la wycrs,
or lobbyists, or provide for the entertain
meDt OF councilmen, or subscribe to cam
paigD funds or bear the expenses OF
pushing the nomination and election Of
men to protect its interests or give IL new
privileges, or pay blackmail to war,: off
the raids of cunning egislat ors and officials
or bug up its rivals, etc.
4. 1T does not have to advertise or
solicit business.
3. at is able to save great deal by
combination with other departments OF
public service
6. Public ownership has no interest to
pay. Even If the people do not own
the capital but borrow It, they can get
the money at much lower rates OF interest
than private compa mics have to pay.
AS a rule private compa nics are obliged
to pay from TO 4 per cent. more than
the municipality in which they are located"
Sour committee would say that even If
the District of Columbia, were 10 become the
owner OF the plant OF the Washington Gas
Light Company at its own valuation, say
81 600 600, was compelled TO borrow that
amount OF money at Fer cent (which IL
could doD the interest charged would Dc but
Si20, 900, as against S436, ,0o0 this year
paid in dividends or interest on bogus
Indebtedness to the company sstockholders;
tsaying nothing of rxtensinns) and thus Il
public saving OF S316,OOo would have
been made in twelve months past. Al
though the average annual saving might be
less yet IL would always be enormous.
Two elements conspire to create the
profits OF the lighting busness-thc re-
turn npon the plant and the value OF the
monopoly. Could gas and electric light
ing profits be limited 10 ordinary business
returns it is likely there would be little
complaint. But the business is essentially
a monopoly, the element of greatest value
the exclusive Use Of streets for this partic-
uiar purpose-bcIng furnished free OF
charge by the municipality. Should our
District authorities permit private hands
to retain the right TO use government prop
eriy for this special purpose? Is II Just
to other classes of business? The merchant
receives no COVE rnnlcntal favors. The gas
or electric light manufacturer is furnished
with the exclusive use of public property.
Can we wonder that the business man suf-
fers while the recipient of special favCrs
wakes fat?
The evil is not to be met by multiplied
ton of gas or electric light companies.
This but increases fixed charges to be
paid by consumers and creates double
service and expense where public economy
demaE the existence OF single institu-
ton.
FOR GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.
\ limitation upon the rate of dividend to
BE- declared by private company only IN
differently meets the necessities of the &C
casion. Useless methods OF spending money
beneficial TO managers are ea silly devised TO
keep down dividends. Nor need We fear
the cry that the ext ension of public functions
will furlher debase politics. Its becoming
commonplace among students OF public
affairs that the great source of political
dishonesty now lies in the TACT that we
permit private persons to monopoiizc public
privileges and in their fight To obtain and
retain personal advantages present corrnp-
ton results.
II no better solution Of the final ques-
ton su omitted to your committee existed
than To recommend the installation by the
or entirely new electric aud
gas lighting plants, Your committee would
not hesitate to recomme nd this course
We believe, however, that serious disad-
yantages and needless expense would re-
suit from the tearing up OF the streets
necessary IL sach a course were followed
We further believe that existing pia nts
should be condemned and taken possession
OF by the District OF Columbia, and the
business Of lighting hereafter carried on
by that municipality. In the condemna-
ton however. no account should be taken
or the value OF the franchise OF the use
OF the streets. The streets belong 10 the
United States and were loaned 10 the
subject to the right of the
government to resume them al any time.
We therefore recommend the passage OF
The following resolution:
Resolved, That the legal committee OF
the Board Of Trade be, and 1t Is hereby
instructed to prepare and press before
Congress, bill providing for the con
demnation Of the plants OF the Washington
Gas Light Company, the United states Elec-
,ric Lighting Company, and the Georgetown
Gas Company. and also providing for the
raising OF sufficient money to pay therefor,
and also for the conduct hereafter or the
lighting business by the District OF CO.
un,bia. Respectfully submitted,
u II. RALSTON. Chairman
TABLE ACCOMPANYING REPORT.