The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-07-04
ANOTHER HORRIBLE EXAMPLE

Another horrible example is being pre-
sented to a shrinking pubic of the
dangers which attend the application of
the principle Of municipal ownership OF
public utilities. 1t comes from Boston,
and it is being awaited Of as a conclusive
argument against the dangerous thought
that the public might, could, would or
should be permitted to do those things
| for themselves, involving the comfort or
welfare of the entire community, which
! have been done in the past by private
! corporations.
1t appears that that excellent Democrat
and broad minded statesman, Josiah
Quincy, was mayor of Boston for term,
and, as all good Democrats do, ne looked
around to find wherein he could render
his administration of the office advanta-
geous to all the people of the town of Bos-
ton. He concluded that he might, with
the welfare of the community as his OBJ
! jective point, inaugurate certain public
| utilities. He inaugurated public baths,
dOuGO ice 10 IIC City LOO1iloilAGJ l1IN0 Cl4NN-
ling the people to use the fountains as it
was designed they should use them, and
which they never do as long as really
cool drink is available, either by purchase
or gift. He had the city supply its own
printing and stationery; established a vet
Urinary bureau in which all the animals
belonging to the city should be treated;
inaugurated building repair bureau by
which all needed repairs to city buildings
might be done, and started various other
like institutions whereby many private in
dustries regarded themselves as being
placed at a disadvantage.
The Bostonese did not have the good
sense to keep Mayor Quincy in Office at
all hazards, and it has followed that his
successor was not at all up to date. He
could not understand why the city should
have such an army of employees in its
service, or why all those things which the
city was doing or making or mending
could not be done. made or mended by
the effort of private individuals and to
their enrichment. He also made discov-
cries. Too much money had been charged
for the doing or making or mending of
certain things, more in some instances
than the work could be done for by pri-
vate enterprise It is related that several
thousand dollars were taken from the city
treasury through the experiment; and ac-
t.
that municipal ownership is a dangerous
undertaking for American cities to en-
gage themselves in. Conditions are SO
entirely different, you know, in Bos-
ton, for instance, to what they are in
Glasgow, where municipal ownership Ia
such a striking success!
Now the truth of the entire matter is
this: What excess in charges resulted to
the city was due, not to the badness of
| municipal ownership in active operation:
but to the fact that politics was allowed
to affect the result Without an effective
system of civil service no such expert
ment can be safely undertaken, either in
Boston or in any other American city.
Through the pull of the politicians the
city pay rolls were loaded up with Of
fetal dead wood. and often a force twice
greater than was needed was employed In
a given undertaking. SO that, What the
wise men are now putting forward as
proof that municipal ownership is likely
to prove a failure in every American city
in which it is tried is nothing whatever
save proof that the SPOTS system is a
! debased continuance, and in operation
will ruin any enterprise, public or private
conducted under its auspices.