Chicago eagle., 1900-09-22
szl-----4-a-
MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP.

Municipal ownership, some writers
contend. may be all right under ideal
municipal conditions. where govern.
mcnt is both honest and efficient. such
writers admit chcerfully that European
cities are safe in trying experiments
along the line of municipal ownership
because of the greater efficiency aud
purity of local government abroad. but
they assert that American munlcipall.
ties cannot afford to risk ventures of
this kind. because Of the low tone of
| municipal politics In this country.
Dr. Albert Shaw. editor of the Re.
view of Reviews. and u close student
of municipal problems IN this country
/ and abroad. takes precisely the opposite
view. lie thinks that municipal owner.
ship in this country. instead of waiting
| for the Improvement of political cOndi.
tons. may be necessary To free our
cities from the corruption and mlSrulc
| which Notwithstanding corporations
| have helped to force upon them. In Ger
man cities, DR.. Shaw says. there Is no
predspositlOn either for or against nlii-
nlcipal ownership. The public amlhori.
| ties simply pursue the course in any
given instance that they deem best for
the city. The municipality Is SO strong
| that there Is no fear that II will br de.
frauded In any arrangements II may
make with private corporations for sup
plying u public service. The best legal
talent ana the best business ability are
| In the service of the city. whereas In
| America all the advantage Is upon the
side of the corporations. Under condi.
| tlons as they exist In Germany. says
| Dr. shaw. 1t Is manifestly n matter of
comparatively small consequence
whether the policy of public ownership
| or private management hc followed
| In either event the rights OF the public
are thoroughly protected. hut Amerl-
can city governments are so weak. In
contrast with the corporations that
come 10 them for favors. that the Sys-
| TEN of private management Is almost
certain 10 he unsatisfactory. Drawing
Il comparison with Ella sgow, DR.. Shaw
says:
| Municipal government In Glasgow
Is strong enough To own and run the
street railways perfectly well, and. on
| the other hand, II Is strong enough TO
make thoroughly advantageous bar.
gains with contractors and private com.
panlcs. II can practice municipal own
| ership and operation or II can let them
alone, and In either case il can always
dominate the situation, but in the Uni
ted States the scandals and difficulties
attendant upon the municipal owner.
| ship of, let us say, lighting plants
would not he so great as those involved
In the making of bargains between mu.
nlclpal governments and the gas trusts
ana Illuminating companies ana in the
exercise of an alleged public control" +"
| Dr. Shaw does not advocate the
Wholesale plunge into projects for the
| Wide extension of municipal functions,
but he charactcriZcs aS tedious mum
merry the abstract and metaphysical
dlsquSitlons of closet philosophers and
wlscacr" dGgmatlsrs who proceed to
beg the whole question by their mere
| framing of the definition of the word
government DR.. Shaw summarizes
his position in the following words.
| I'm conclusion ! have only 10 remark
that the practical situation in the Unit.
ed States is rapidly shifting the burden
| of proof. The relations existing n0to-
ri0usly between great corporations and
our legislatures and municipal govern.
mcnts ar" forcing upon rs the question
not whether in some directions the
business functions Of government can
b" safely or wisely extended, but, rath.
er, the question how to avoid very
extensive Increase Of public functions
as the only visible retreat from the in
iolcrablc state of decentralization into
which government has fallen. The