The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-03-15

60 the second reason that restrictive
provision is only justifable on this
ground, whom it is made to apply to all
corporations alike which are exposed to
unjust or unfair competition. Where re-
stricted to particular kind of corpora
tion which is no more exposed than many
others of different kind. it becomes in
defensible.
Mr.. Payson has, it seems to us, over
looked the true reason, for granting GER
tain corporations exclusive privileges. Tt
is on public grounds, not private, that
such privileges are justifable. 1t is not
to protect the investments Of their stock
holders or to diminish their risk that
these privileges can BIZ rlghtfully granted;
for. If they could be given on these
grounds, it wuuld logically follow that
every worthy enterprise would be entitled
to and could not be justly refused the
same kind Of privilege, though perhaps
in different degree-but to promote the
public welfare and protect some public
right from undue encruachment. An en-
terprise requiring large Investment OF
capital, like a company which proposes
to bring water from q distant source
and distribute it among residentH Of
city or town, may properly be given ex-
elusive privileges on the ground that I'M
less reasonable certainty be assured that
the stockholders will get faiI return for
their money, the enterprise will not be
started and thus the public fail to realize
very important benefit. The protection
of the capital here is not the end sought
by the exclusive privilege. That is the
promotion of the public welfare and that
Is the real justification Of the exclusive
privilege. The protection of capital is
but a means TO an end. Again, exclusive
privilege may properly be granted to an
enterprise that encroaches upon ard
prevent the total exit notion of that right
whion might follow multiplication of
tile enterprise. A street railroad company
is given exclusive privileges in certain
streets, not primarily to protect it's in
vestment or make it profitable but be-
cause a multiplication of railroad tracks
would render the streets useless to
carriages and thus totally extiguish an
important public right On these grounds
granting Of exclusive privilege is
justifable and upon these ane cognate
grounds ouly.
Let US apply these principles to the
business Of furnishing electric light and
power. If they are sound, an electric
light company is not entitled to protec-
ton from competition, for it's own sake.
That can be accorded only ON one of
the public grounds suggested. That the
business Of electric lighting Is not one
which requires so large an investment
that no corporation wonld embark in 1t
without protection of exclusive privilege
would seem to be sufficiently established
by the fact that numerous individuals or
ganized into corporations have repeatedly
applied for the powers needed to engage
in it without asking for or suggesting
any exclusive privilege and that respon-
sible persons stand ready to engage in it
today without any such privilege. Does
it enoroach upon any public right to an
extent that demands restriction? 1t does
undou btedly somewhat obstruot the
street with poles and wires, and it is
possible these poles and wires might be
multiplied to such an extent as to con-
stitute serious and even uncomfortable
abridgment of public rights In the streets.
Herein may be sufficient reason for limit
ing the number of electric light COM
panies operating in city, and it is upon
this ground that the restrictive provision
Of the general law Of 1895 must b. justi-
fled if at all. There is something to be
said upon both sides of this question,
though the statute that existed several
years prior to the passage of the law of
1895. and which made the consent of
municipal authorities of cities and towns
a condition precedent for the erection of
poles and stringing of wires would seem
to constitute sufficient protection against
undue multiplication of electric COM
panies.
But the most serious objection to the
law Of 1895 is not that it gives exclusive
privileges but that it gives them without
making any provision to protecs the
public from extortionate charges. In this
respect it is a radical departure from the
policy of the state, and not in accord
with it as Mr.. Payson argues.
When business ia subject to unre-
stricted competition that may be relied
upon to keep the prices reasonable, but
when competition is excluded something
should lie supplied to take it's place,
especially If the article dealt in is a
necessity of life I'he laws Of 1895 re-
moves competition and supplies nothing
in It's stead.
1t ia easily shown that when the legis-
lature has seen fit to grant exclusive
privileges it has taken Gaze to accompany
them with provisions calculated to keep
prices reasonable. The Portland Gas
Light company was granted exclusive
right Of supply ing gas to this city, but
only on condition that il should submit
its charges to regulation by three disin-