The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1898-09-09
M UNICIPAL OWNERSHIP OF ELEC
TRIO LIG RTING PLANT.

accounts of great savings claimed to be
made by municipal ownership o lighting
pIapts in other cities reach the ears of
mem bers of CITY councils, and they, hav-
ing the interest of their respective cities
in mind, endeavor to have the truth or
falsehood of these accounts investigated
with q view that if the accounts be true,
to take such steps as Will reap like
benefit for the cities they represent. AT
a meeting of the city council an investi-
CATION is called for, and Ii committee ap-
pointed to ascertain the cost o f producing
light in these cities and make report of
same to the city council. Now, 1t usual
ly happens that the members who com :
pose these committees though they may
be good business men in the business in
which they happen to be engaged, are un-
acquainted with the business Of electric
lighting and have no practical experience
in electrical affairs. They communicate
with the officials Of these Utopian cities
and receive statements and data, which,
even if correct as far as they go, are usu-
ally worthless because of their insufficien-
cy which renders it impossible to COM
pute with any degree of accuracy the ex-
act cost of producing light. The reports
are quite commonly received from
officials who have no knowledge of the
science of electricity or it's practical ap.
plication, and whose information regard
ing the working of the oity's plant has
been obtained from employees who, it may
be for political reasons make statements
as to the cost of plant and expenses Of
operating which in nearly every case Is
minimized. To illustrate this, take the
statement which was sent broadcast
throughout the country by advocates Of
municipal ownership relative to the cost
of lights at Little Rock, Ark. 1t was
stated by the city clerk of that city that
the cost Of lights per lamp per year was
but t61.00 A committee from Kansas
City was informed that the COST was but
S47. rs; the Hamilton committee was told
the cost was $40 90, and the superintend-
emit of lights IN his report to the mayor
for the same year states that the cost
was $50 49, OF course such Information
as was given is wholly worthless. for the
truth is that when every expense was in
cluded 1t was found to cost for all night
lighting and every night, more than
double even this last named sum. Many
cities and communities have based their
calculations upon the supposed cheapness
Of light in Little Rock, and voted to
adopt municipal ownership of lighting
plants. Manufacturers of electrical appar-
atus are ever ready to furnish to city
councils glowing accounts of systems by
which. If their plans are adopted, cleo
trio lights can be produced for a mere
trifie. The stories sound well, are p1aus-
ible and even convincing, and the men,
bers feel that it is a duty they owe their
respective cities to install a lighting
plant. But there are other things to con-
slider before voting to do SO which it
might be well for city councils to remem-
Der, viz: That when municipality in
stall Is lighting plant it must first pro-
cure funds. Funds for such purposes IRE
raised by mourning q city debt and sell
ling the city's bonds which become paya-
BILE after term of years. These bonds
are. of course, readily foated, not because
municipal business is managed equally
well with the best industrial corporations
(for no person can be found who has
closely observed how all public work is
done, who will hesitate for one moment
to affirm that private management, in
comparison with public management, is
at least go per cent more efficient, saving
and economical in every way). but be-
cause the entire property Of the city is
plsdged to meet their payment, and not
the lighting plant alone. The aggregate
property is of such enormous value that
the security is ample, and the power of
taxation is so absolute that payment is
certain.
Nothing is easier than to make the
oretical argument in favor of municipal
ownership, but any attempt to put these
theories into practice evolves the fact that
the theories in them depend entirely upon
a state of things that do not exist; their
arguments are in contradiction of the &c
tual experience of practical men and the
best scientists of this generation, who
have not only made q study of the SUBJ
jeot, but demonstrated the same by test
LNS ~ oVefy AlSAh lVf years. many auNO-
Gates Of municipal ownership admit that
the profits of tho corporation represent
the only difference between the cost of
municipal and private lighting" In view
of this admission it is only necessary to
examine the report of the Massachusetts
Commissioners of Gas and Electricity for
1898, which shows that Of sixty-two COM
panies doing business in that State "tEree
Of the companies appear not to have
earned expenses and thirty-two could not
pay dividend.
This is conclusive evidence that the
electric light companies of Massachu-
setts (though they receive more than
W hat Portland pays), are not being paid
a, proper price for lighting; and, if pri-
vate company can, with all its care, skill
and close business management, barely pay
expenses at present prices, how can mu-
nicipality be benefited by engaging in
the business and aving to rely for SER
vices and business sagacity upon shifting
municipal managers. inexperienced in
the business and liable to be changed at