Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-08-27
sTREET-CAR FRANCHISES.

We find in the Louisville Courior-Jour-
nal g column of quotations FROM and
comment upon an address delivered re-
Gently by Mr.. Edwin b. eager before
Connecticut legislative committee. His
subject was street-car franchises. For
the most part his discussion of it was
academic. What he said about the value
TO the public of good street-car system
Is undisputed. The merit of his address
was in presenting accepted truths in
forms of speech. which are likely TO
labide in the minds of the people.
! According 10 Mr.. Gager's view, a fran
tchise to have financial value must b. of
such nature that its owner can derive
from 1t profit in excess Of a reasonable
profit on the investment and operation.
''Such a franchise" said he, lis a patent
eight. For instance, take an article that
when patented is sold at S. but il open
u general manufacture could be sold at
81, and SIN afford a reasonable profit"
Mr.. eager defines this 81 as the value of
the franchise secured 10y patent. But be
denies that any such franchises exist, so
far as street railways are concerned. lie
says the margins of profit on street rail-
ways have been small in nearly all cases
And the Courier-Jounal remarks that
1.-THE cold fact Is, taking them generally,
thus far the riding public and the local
property-owners have been the gamers.
stockholders have invested on faith in
ultimate results which have not yet been
realized. The best OF the roads have done
40 better than fairly successful manu-
featuring or mercantile business"
That has been the experience here in
Richmond. Few of our roads have been
piohtable. In all instances the public
has been the gamer, but think how few
OF the stockholders have been adyantaged
b. their investments! Yet. the gene
ral opinion u.s., that a strcet-car franchise
carries with ii fortune. But not So
not so here in Richmond; not SO in the
average American city. There are but
few New Yorks and Chicagoes.
We think street railway investments Of
fer fair prospect when prudentiy made,
but IL Is only in rare instances they can
Be counted upon as great fortune-mukers.
SIN ii is but natural ana proper that
city should wish TO get as much com
pensation as possible Tor ats franchises.
Equally natural IS 1t for the companies
20 wish to secure franchises as broad and
liberal as the public will grant
In our own case, while We should have
wise regard for the interests of the
public treasury, our first aim would bet
ter be 10 secure a good reliable service
over smooth and solidly-built roads. The
rattle OF shaky cars ought 10 be heard
no more In our city. Transfers from one
line TO another are demanded 10y the
people, and this demand will never cease
all ii is granted. There may be delay,
evasion, or postponement but the ques-
tion will bob up again and again til a
general transfer system Is inaugurated
covering Richmond, Manchester. and their
suburbs. II our City Council could put TO
fhe people the question. whether they
would rather the city should have a biz
revenue from street-cars and 90 without
a general transfer system, or have such
transfer system with moderate reye-
nue., the latter proposition would prevail
by a large majority.
Again. our Council will have 10 take
care OF the city's interests In the mat
Ter Of future developments in the motive
power Of street-cars. This is a delicate
and difficult question How are we going
10 meet II? In our opinion 1t is going to
De perpiexing problem for the City
Council 10 solve when 1t comes 10 draw
Up an ordnance disposing OF the old
eompanys franchises. On the one hand.
Il Will have TO take care that we shall
always have motive power that Is up
to-date for city OF our class. Yet, the
Council would be unwise TO burden the
ordinance with requirements which might
crush the company that In hot haste ac-
ccpted them.
DO We must see that the exaction OF
moneyed tribute from railway corpora
''~"s is not the only thing to be looked