Evening star., 1897-02-02
Baltimore's Experiment in City Con-
duit Ownership.
TIE PUzzLlHG PRoBERk IN ST. LOUIS
Discussion Of RataE and Their
Bearing on s' Prices.
AN INTEREsTINGro INQUIRY
From the Engineering News.

From the Engineering News
1t is now very generally admitted that
overhead electric wires in our large cities
are Objectionable on many accounts. and
the experience of some years has demon
strated that underground, conduits are
practicable for all classes Of electric wires.
But the ownership Of the conduits where
the wires are put underground Is a aues-
tion yet to be settled. Up to this time
the practice in cities where wires have
been laid in conduits is either to permit
the electric light. telephone and other COM
panies to do the work themselves or else
to grant a franchise to subway COM
pany to build and lease condults under the
more or less strict control Of the munich
pal authe rites as 20 rental, etc. The gen
eral result of the former practice is a use
less multiplication of various systems of
conduits, complications in the use of streets
by rival companies and a rental charge that
is excessive, when the possibilities of the
case afe considered, and which constitutes
a heavy and needless tax upon the use of
what Is now an absolutely necessary means
of tnterco mmunication. light and power
In the experimental stage of the effort
to remove overhead wires the first cost of
the construction of conduits and the uncer-
tainty of their properly fulfilling all that
was demanded of them deferred municipal
authorities from assuming the risk of their
construction. and at that time there was
possibly good reason for caution in this
connection. But the development of con-
dut construction and operation which has
followed the trials and experiences of the
last eight or ten years has practically re-
moved these difficulties and risks and the
propriety of municipal ownership and alb
solute, as well as partial control is proper
subject for discussion.
Baltfmore's Enterprise.
While some cities, ST. Louis for example,
have the option Of purchasing the conduits
built by private companies at the eld of
the franchise term, Baltimore is, so far
as We can learn, the first city 10 undertake
on Its own account the building and op-
GRAFTON of complete system of electric
subways. Commencing without electric
subways of any type. and benefit,ng by
the experience of other cities. Baltimore
has decided the question of ownership in
Its own favor. and the Maryland legisla-
ture has authorized the city to expend
S,oOO.0OO for this purpose. with the full
approval Of the citizens as expressed by
Popular vote. The reasons which have led
to this conclusion are fully set forth in
the several reports Of Mr.. Nicholas s. Hill.
jr.. the engineer Of the electrical CON mis-
sion of Baltimore having that matter in
charge. Mr.. Hill has exhaustively i1.yesti-
gated the subject of the operation and
ownership of electrical subways in New
York Philadelphia, Chicago, st. Louis,
Paris and London, ard hisllast report es-
pecially Is worthy of careful study
The authorities quoted in this report very
generally express the belief that the in
terests of the city ATE besg subserved by
municipal ownership OF the condufts Ex-
perience has demonstrated that the con-
struction of such conduits by subway COM
panies and their rental b electric COM
panies. under charges nnminaily based
great Inconvenience Is ali Concerned. With
conduits varying in type and efficiency,
often located inconwepientlY. and orig1-
Eaily buif with .tnorSey raised by irdf-
vidual effort with more. or less difficulty,
the resultant cost ik. unduly greap and
the rental charged istligble to be oIrpres-
sive upon the users 81 electric service
There is always room for contention and
complications between rival companies,
which means in the end increased cost to
the user of electric light. Moreover, II Is
certainly. not good public policy for any
municipality to ented into a permanent
copartnership with private corpora tions In
the use of public streets. This latter obtec-
tfon may be met by a franchise for a lin
tied period. and provision for ultimate
ownership on the part Of the city: but the
first objection of undue cost of service to
the public still remains
A Serious Problem.
To confer a monopoly in conduit con-
struction upon any one company. even
1890 ASeASAAo
tai. does not remedy the matter of cost:
Ii does an injustice to somebody and is IL
able to result in serious complications and
trouble to users. On the other hand, TO
grant franchises to a number of companies
ana 10 allow each to build its own conduits
Is 10 bring about utter confusion and is
directly opposed to the pre-eminen1 prin-
ciple that the city alone can regulate and
shouid maintain control of the space be-
meath the surface of its streets Mr. Hill
quotes the experience of st. Louis, under
the iast.named conditions, as showing that
applications for permission to build con-
quits In that city. coming from fourteen
companies, cover almost every street and
alley IN the business portion Of the city
and that on some of the streets a half
dozen or more companies want to build
ana there is hardly a street which will not
pc occupied by at least two companies
The problem presented 20 the st. Louis
board Of public improvement is a serious
one, as each street and alley must be sep
arateiy considered ard the conflicting
claims Of rival companies and the COM
plants of property owners must be heard
ana In some way adjusted. 1t may be said
here. that the board of public Improve
Tents may compel the joint use of con-
duits where two or more companies desire