The record-union., 1896-06-20
ON MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP.
Subjects Discussed by the Young Mems
CiYiCS Club.
Should the City Own the Gas, Water,
Street Railway and Other
Franchises?

At the meeting of the Young Mems
Club of Civics on Thursday evening the
Chairman, DR.. Hoyt, fully set out the
scheme of the Committee on Fupilc
Works, stating that the purpose was 10
bring out the fullest, freest possible oe-
bate, and especially all that can pe pos
sibly urged against such pollcy' anu
all that can be advanced IN faVor OIL IT,
may be developed and fully considered
since by such consideration the MINDS
of the members would be enlightened
and the nearest possible approach to
the truth attained.
The committees reasons for It's pro-
posed charter amendment were, IN
brief: Private parties want pubic IRAN
chises for money making purposes
why should not the city reserve all sucn
to it's own profit and benefit? The city
of Berlin reaps 81 ,3OO0 600 profit year
from it's gas works, which goes to the
benefit of all the citizens New YORK
pays 81 % a thousand for its gas; why
should not it make it for the people at
81 if it can?
Government ownership VIII prevent
strikes Individual citizens. having a
share in Government works, can redress
their own wrongs. Private resources
are used only in private enterprises, but
other resources may well be invested
for development in the interest OF ana
by all the people. The plan will aug
ment private interest in Government,
and thus strengthen and solidify it.
The greater interest of the individual
citizen in the public works will tend to
increase the sense of individual re-
ont
is also to be considered. For instance,
land gains in value by public growth in
city, though the owner may do moth
ing to or with it. Does not that gain
belong to the public? The socialization
of monopolies tends to prevent the ac-
cumulation of great fortunes and the
more equitable distribution of wealth.
Public ownership will tend to the bet
terment of public service. Private own
ership naturally serves itself first. Vast
corporations are a menace to free
speech and a free ballot. Corporations
are forced into politics in self-defense
from cinching measures and the cor
ruption of those who would profit at
their expense. Corporate industries are
subject to the reach of the legislative
arm, and hence there comes destructive
legislation, and this is met by corrup-
ton very often. New York reduced gas
rates by Act Of Legislature. but it drove
the gas corporations to defensive meas
Ures. As soon as the Government puts
its hand upon public utilities the cor
porations or private enterprises use
their powers to secure protection ans
silence opposition. The bridge between
private enterprise and monopoly is So
cialism, but that may be avoided in
municipalities by cities owning public
utilities, as is done already in cities in
Europe and in this country
The report was supported by Mr.
Winn. who cited instances of such a
policy in Europe He opposed the Civ
ing away of franchises by the city, His
search of authorities had shown him
that the public ownership policy had
done away with corruption wherever
tried.
Mr.. Atkinson opposed the report A
municipal corporation should not be
money making. It's purpose is to pro-
tect the citizen and his property, pro-
vide for those conveniences and COM
forts necessary to communities and to
make such improvements as these de-
mand. In ordinary matters all the
voters have voice, but in those things
calling for large expenditures the own
ers of tax-paying property should have
the greater voice. France tried the ex-
pertinent of utilizing all public utilities
by ownership in Paris. even to places
of entertainment and it resulted in
setting up eighty-four heads of de-
partments that were autocratic The
system drew to Paris all men from the
interior who became locally prominent,
nd 81,
into Partisan public service.
Capitalization of power results from
such experiments and that is always
dangerous. The public at large is not
so competent to judge of the need and
economies of improvements as private
individuals. City ownership will drive
away capital. If there are two or more
plants, for instance, of public works,
and a city resolves to buy one and op-
crate it. what becomes of the others?
What saves them from practical con-
fiscation?
The experiment would lead to con-
duct of stores and hotels and the like
by the public and stifle private enter
rrise Corporations are seldom more
wrong than individuals who, in their
sovereign capacity. create them. If
corporations are oppressive they can
be restricted and regulated. If the peo-
pie viii discharge their political duties
and elect proper men to office. Regu-
lation might go TO the extent of limit
ing earnings from granted franchises,
the surplus to inure to the city. That
is done already in some places.
DR.. Pyburn, a visitor, by request ad-
dressed the club. He favored the re-
port He saw difficulties in the way,
but thought they could be overcome
with justice He believed in city own
ership of what he termed natural mo-
nopolies. The greater argument in favor
of the report is that ii conduces to
greater profit to the people to be used
for their betterment. instead of having
these public utilities conduce to pri-
vate profit and benefit. There is
strength in the objection that Govern
ment work is not conducted so eco
nonically. because lower wages are
paid by private enterprise and hard
terms exacted. and in public works
~ 6I