The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-20
GEORGETOWN THE VICTOR
The University of Wisconsin Beaten
in joint Debate.
A Spirited Discussion on Municipal
Versus Private Ownership of
Lighting PlaHtS-Specchcs Full of
Wit and BristlinG With sta
ti-tics - The Judges Decision.

The Joint debate between representa-
tives of the law departments OF the Uni
yersity of Wisconsin and Of Georgetown
University last night at the Lafayette
Square Opera House resulted in victory
for the latter Wisconsin, proud of its
many victories in intercoll giate discus
sions, was made TO drink the bitter cup
of defeat, after most vigorous defence of
its contention. Georgetown, not on'y in
the estimation of the judges, but in that
of the audience as well, was superior to its
adversary and won a merited palm.
a few minutes after O'Clock, at the
close of a selection by the orchestra. the
college yell of Wisconsin broke the silence
which had fallen upon the expectant audi
1nce II was evident from the noise that
the representatives of the wild and woolly
West had friends in the audience. But
when this had subsidized and the voices OF
Georgetown rent the air presage of what
was to come forced itself upon the II. nds
Of those present.
The Visitors Welcomed.
When quiet had been restored the
Chairman of the Georgetown committee,
Charles L. Mulhearn, of Rhode Island, ex-
tended hearty welcome TO the visitors
from Wisconsin. He reminded them that
their fame had gone before them, and that
the debaters of Georgetown knew only too
well what foemen they were to meet. Inc
welcome was all the greater because they
were worthy Of it. and it was unstinted as
the hospitality which Georgetown extend
ed to Wisconsin. Mr. Mulhearn announced
that the judges of the debate were Edmund
W. Pettus. of Alabama; George c. Perkins,
of California, and Jonathan Ross, of YER
mont, all Senators of the United States. He
then announced the question to be dis
cussed, as follows:
In cities of the United States OF 5000 popu-
la;ion, or over, Is private ownership and opera
tion Of electric lighting and gas plants preferable
TO a system Of municipal ownership and opera
tion; the municipalities TO have the sole right
TO furnish light for private as well as public
uses
1t being conceded that under municipal owner
slip all employees shall be appointed under strict
civil service rules.
The affirmative side was debated by
Wisconsin, whose speakers were William
NJ. McGrath William S. Kies, and Theo-
dore W. Brazean. The negative side fell
to the lot of Georgetown, who was repre-
sented by Daniel W. o'Donoghue of the
District of Columbia, James H. Higgins of
Rhode Island, and John J. Kirby Of Mas
sachusetts.
In opening the discussion William NJ.
McGrath made a strong plea for the pri-
waite ownership of gas and electric lighting
plants, contending that it was the natural
order of things, that municipalities have
burdens enough without shouldering these,
and that 1t was wrong to municipaliZe an
industry which could be better carried on
as a private enterprise. Mr.. McGrath said
that the negative proposed a radical
change from existing conditions and hence
must assume the burden Of proof. He de-
clared that the negative to prove its case
must first show cause for action and must
then prove that public ownership was the
action to take. He said further that all
the evils urged against private ownership
Of lighting plants could be overcome by
appointing commission to exercise con-
troll over them, by compelling the corpora
lions to report to this commission annu-
ally, and by empowering it to reduce the
cost Of lighting on the representations Of
citizens that the service was inferior.
The Negative Opening.
Daniel W. O'Donoghue, in opening the
negative argument, explained that the fur
nishing Of gas and electric lighting is in
the nature of monopoly. Competition. he
showed, could not exist, and that the in
evitable tendency Of private ownership was
to take advantage of the monopoly TO fleece
the people either by too high prices or by
inferior service. He said that the mu-
nicipal ownership Of gas had been sue
cess In many instances. As a result O. it !
he declared that twelve cities were paying !
so cents per 1000 cubic feet, while Wash !
ington was paying s1.10 and Georgetown |
sl.35. Mr.. 0'Donoghue made happy hit
by quoting from DR.. Ely, the instructor /
in political economy in the University of
Wisconsin, in support of his theory.
William s. kies, the second speaker for
the affirmative, made happy reply 10 the
illusions to DIR. Ely, and put the audience
In good humor by saying he was not sur
prised to learn that Alexandria had a mu-
nicipal gas plant, because it was too slow
to be up to date in such matters. Mr..
kies then protested against comparing the
lighting experiments in European cities
with those in our own cities. He declared
that the populations OF European cities
were more nearly homogeneous than cur
OWL: that political conditions were lot the
same, and the chances for political COR
ruption were much less than here. The
experience OF Chicago was then reviewed at
length, Mr.. Kies showing that its effort
at municipal lighting had been costly, I'M
and failure. He then argued
that the change from private ownership to
public ownership would involve vast
outlay, would saddle enormous debts upon
and would open the door
still wider for political corruption.
James H. Higgins followed, and present.
sd an elaborate argument in favor OF pub
lie ownership. appealing particularly 10 De-
troit and Allegheny. He showed that Allie
eheny under public ownership is now pay
Ing $50 per arc light, while Pittsburg is