The Topeka state journal., 1900-02-07
MUNICIPAL
OWNERSHIP.
Governor H. s. Pingree Dis
cusses Street Railways.
All the People and Not a Few
Are Benefited.
SENTIMENT FAVORS 1T
Advocates of This Plan Not
Cranks and Socialists.
Refers to Government Control
of POst0fflces.

OF EOSL0AAceSs
III. S. Pingree in Philadelphia Times.1
A misconception of what municipal
ownership is and means has gradually
taken possession of people because Of
the day-by-day steady presentation by
biased newspapers and others of incor-
rect facts and Illogical argument. Seek
the motives of those who oppose muni-
cipal ownership and you will almost in
varfably find that it is self-interest. On
the other hand, there is no way in
which. advocates of municipal owner
ship can profit by the success of the
movement. The benefits accrue TO the
entire people-not to privileged few.
In the first place municipal owner
ship is not a new thing The principle
involved in 1t is almost as old as dem
Ocratic government itself. There are
more than 300 varieties OF undertaking
and businesses now engaged in by gov
ernments. Among these are schools.
parks, streets, bridges, Waterworks, IL
brarleS, museums, armies, naV1eS, pest
offices, lighting plants, etc. None OF
them is now regarded as the especial
province of private corporations. One
by one the government has been as.
Sum1ng the ownership apd control OF
these public utilities. Very little COM
plant has been heard because it has
done so. The results OF government
to the people that there has been absO-
lutely no demand for return to private
ownership.
Yet there is absolutely no difference
in principle between public ownership
and operation of the postoffice several
generations ago and public ownership
and operation of the Pacific cable now
-bctW cen public ownership OF streets
tie time of the esta bIishmeEr of our
government and municipal ownership
of street railways now. The principle
lcvOiVsd is the same.
Two decades ago there were no pub
lie lighting plants in the country. Now
there are nearly 400. Private owners
OF lighting plants are vigorous in their
condemnation of municipal ownership.
But with the growth of public senti-
Eaent their epithets are becoming mild
er. In fact, L think it will be admitted
now by every one Except the stock
holders of private corporations which
are being supplanted by public plants)
that the success of municipal owner
ship of waterWOrkS and lighting plants
IS no longer a subject for debate For
instance. in Detroit the cost per street
arc lamp under the last year Of prI-
vate contract, 1893. was $3.50 per lamp.
Last year. under municipal ownership,
the cost was S75.56 per lamp, a saving
of $54. A per lamp This means an an
nual saving to Detroit of over $100 600,
there being about 1000 lamps.
Public waterworks and lighting
plants have proved their right to live.
force all private companies out of ex-
istence- Nothing can stop their pro-
gress. I therefore do not think it
worth while to discuss municipal own
ership of those public utilities.
It is equally apparent that municipal
ownership of street railways will be the
next movement demanding public at
tention. 1 will endeavor to state and
then answer the principal objections
which are offered to municipal owner
ship of street railways. [ believe, how
ever, that most, if not all, of these OBJ
jections have already been answered by
actual experience under municipal 1
ownership of other public utilities. The
first objection is that city governments
should not engage in businesses which
properly belong to the domain of pri-
vate enterprise A government which
does so is SOcialiStic in character, the
objectors say. Socialism is the inevita-
Bile ultimate outcome of municipal
ownership This is ole Of the principal
objections urged against municipal
ownership of street railways. 1t had its
origin, of course, in the offices of Dri-
Vate street railway corporations and
other natural monopoly corporations. 1t
IS reported by their attorneys. It finds
Gn eehoing response among other people
of high financial and social standing,
whose fortunes have been made by
means of special privileges and favors,
granted and bought from legislative
bodies, national, state and city. But the
most powerful and effective opposition,
by word and deed, to municipal owner
ship of public utilities. does not come
from the owners themselves OF frau
chises and other special privileges. It
comes from that large class of people
who cater 10 the capitalists-who follow
them blindly-who seek to curry favor
with them for financial and social rea-
sons-who initiate them, or to speak
more piainly-and perhaps in not very
Glegant terms-the "toadies."
There is a WeiI-defined line between
private enterprise and public owner
ship. I would be the last to assert that
government should engage in bust
nesses naturally belonging to the do
main of private enterprise.
Probably the objection to municipal
ownership most frequently urged is
that it would tend to greater corrup-
tion in city government. Fearful pic
lures of evil are painted. 1t is said that
the political bosses would control the
management of street railways, for in
stance and cities would be boss ridden
and boss-plagued. Our city govern
ments are suffering from various ills,
boss plague, ring rule and corruption
in common councils, being among them.
But these evils exist because of the in
difference of the people, and especially
because of the neglect of tn ordinary
obligations of citizenship by those who
declaim the bitterest against those
evils. The only way to cure these ills
is to rouse the people to an appreciation
of their obligations as citizens. Not
until then will the cause be removed.
If the people are siven the right to own
and operate the public utilities which
furnish them with water, light and