The herald., 1897-02-26
UNRESTRICTED COMPETITION
And Ssns Of the Disadvantages Resulting
Thcreffom

And Ssns Of the Disadvantages Resulting
Therefrom
Gov. Wolcott of Massachusetts,, in one
of his messages vetoing an objection
able bill, said: Experience has demon
strated that unrestricted competition
by public-service corporations, although
the temporary results may be to make
cheaper prices to the public, seldom ac-
complish any permanent good. The
public must eventually pay the bills.
can see no permanent advantage to the
community in arming this company
with club by which it may strike down
those already in the field. Temporarily
it does cheaper prices; indeed it must
do SO, or promise to do so, that it may
strike them down; but the history of
such competition demonstrates that
eventually it is the public that SUFFERS -
Prof. Z. j. James, in an address before
the American Economic society, said:
Experience has, over and over again,
demonstrated that opposition gas COM
panies are not beneficial; but, upon the
contrary, that they are injurious to the
best interests Of the citizen, for, instead
of promoting cheap gas, they prevent
and retard the supply, by greatly in
creasing the capital necessary to carry
on the business. Opposition gas
schemes. as a rule-and unfortunately
a rule which admits of few exceptions
are instituted with the primary object
of raiding the business of an established
company"
Judge M. T. Cooley, in a contribution
to the North American Review said:
Except in very large cities, public pol
icy requires that for the supply Of light
or water, there should be but one cor
poration, because one can perform the
service at less cost than two or more,
and in the long run will be certain to do
so. But scheming men make periodical
attacks upon corporations existing for
these and similar purposes, and with a
popular cry for a watchword, they can
always enlist local interest in their IA
vor. If they can succeed in obtaining
a rival franchise, the subsequent history
is commonly this: A war of rates for
season. and then either the sale of one
franchise to the owners of the other, or
a division of the territory, or an agree
ment upon charges. The final result is
that the two supply the market at
greater cost than the one, and the addi-
tional cost is paid by the public"
M. B. S. Keeler's contribution to the
Forum, on "Competition," includes the
following statements: "As soon as the
new company began, the price fell.
Then came the logical end
combination, pooling, a trust, or sale,
and price advanced to enable them to
pay interest on two plants, where one
was adequate to all public wants. We
have reached degree of intelligence in
this country which ought to enable us
to realize that for such conditions the
people themselves are to blame that
rather than submit to the ridiculous and
expensive force of permitted competi-
ton, it is better to intrust the business
to one established company under prop
er and equitable restrictions"
President Theo. Forstall, the eminent
engineer, in his annual address, said:
"In many cities, in response to public
clamor, rival companies have been or
ganized, and the public has not been the
gamer by it for while in some cases
short, sharp competition has ensued and
lower prices obtained in a short time
combination has followed, and the pub
lie has enjoyed the combined monopoly
Of two or more companies instead Of
one, and has only the satisfaction OF pay
ing gas bills that will afford an interest
on duplicated capital"
Before congressional committee Mr..
John McIlhenney testified that "in all
the countries of Europe where competi-
tion Gin Slpplying public service) has
been tried It is now prohibited by law,