The Portland daily press., 1897-03-27

LII alA tue ueDaG6 upon tue question OF
allowing the United Indurated Fibre
Company TO bring electricity into this
city there was not one solitary reason
given against it, that was sound, except
ing that the kindsof current the company
proposed to use was particularly danger
GUS. That was sound reason, but that
was given in an incidental way which
suggested that the person who gave it
did not take much stock In its truth
himself. The rest of them were reasons
that might be given with just as much
force for the protection of manufaotur-
ing corporations or grocery stores or
newspapers or any other kind Of bust
ness. People who own electric light
bonds may lose something if a competi-
tor to the existing company is admitted.
OF course. So if competition with
tho existing newspapers in the city Is
allowed the established papers may lose
something. If more grocery stores are al
lowed in Portland than are needed some
of them will lose money. If more law
yers are permitted to practice in Port
land than there is demand for some of
them will languish. Now are not people
who invest their money In newspapers and
grocery stores or buy law books and
spend years in fitting themselves for their
work just as worthy of protection as those
who invest their money in electric light
plants? Certainly they are. All these
kinds of business are practically confined
to the local market, just as the electric
lighting business is. 1t electric
light companies are to be granted
monopolies to save their investors from
loss should .not.the same protection, to a
greater or less degree according to cir
oumstances, be granted to these other in
austries and businessesf Should not the
legislature pass a law that there should
be, no new paper started In Portland
except with the conssnt.of the existing
newspapers or by special act of the legis-
lature that there should be
no more grocery stores except on
similar conditions? Why should
the business Of electric lighting
be taken especially under the wing of the
legislature ii the reason for the protec
ton given them ia to save them from
possible loss from competitionP But
somebody says these electric light
companies are "quasi-public corpora
tions' and rolls that phrase under his
tongue as if it constituted in itself
sufficient defence for giving them exclu-
sive privileges. What ia meant by quasi
public corporationsP We suppose the gem
tlemen who use tho phrase mean as far
as they mean anything, Ia good many of
them have used it apparently simply be
cause others use it) a corporation that
has been given some public right which
most corporations do not have. notably
the right of eminent domain. If this is
what they mean then their argument
amounts to this, that because corpora
tion has been given superior rights there.
fore 1t is entitled to superior protection.
A newspaper or grocery store not hav.
ing been given the right to take other
peoples property without the owners
consent, and the electric light com pany
having been given that right the latte
HuOAlQ 10 bulciQO0 lAOAu Cuuu D6UlUlOI
while the former should not. To state
such reason is to show Its absurdity.
The truth Is that exclusive privileges
can not be defended for an instant or
any ground except a public ground. To
prevent the undue enoroachment on pub
lie right s that might follow from a null
duplication of similar corporations, or to
enable corporations to properly perform
their public duties protection may be
properly given them that is not generally
afforded. but only for these or fol
analogous reasons. To enable them tt
make more money, or to protect their in.
vestors from loss are not proper reasons
for giving exclusive privileges, and
if the Maine legislature supported the
exclusive privileges now enjoyed by the
Consolidated Light Company for these
reasons land it is fair to presume that it
did inasmuch az these were almost ex-
clusively the reasons that appeared in the
debate it has been guilty of a favoritism
that is utterly indefensibles