New-York tribune., 1901-03-18
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP.

Although the State or municipal ownership OF
public utilities has not yet reached the point
where il can properly he called burning ques
tiOn in this country the interest in il has grown
perceptibly in the last ten years. Many intelli-
gent men believe that. even under the most
unfavorable conditions that obtain to-day. the
public ownership of many utilities would be
success; and a still larger number. while depre-
eating any premature experiments. believe that
public ownership is sure TO come in the not dis
tant future. They say that all the complex ten
denotes in the political and Industrial world
point in that direction. and that men who are
striving with more or less success TO make them
selves kings of monopoly under the competitive
system are unconsciously leading up 10 the
point when the people will decide that if a few
men can administer the utilities of the country
for their own personal benefit the State may
administer them for the benefit of all the people.
They go further indeed. and say that III some
cases we have quasi-public ownership of utili-
ties now, when an INSCRIPTIONS political boss
succeeds in controlling great corporations ana
perhaps even in blackmailing them by the
threat of hostile legislation. Would it not he
much better they ask. for the State or the city
I'm such cases to assume the Legitimate control
of these utilities for the benefit of the public
than 10 allow boss to control them ileSit-
mately for his own benefit:
But one point appears TO be ignored by the
advocates OF public ownership. and especially
by n number of noisy. unthnking persons who
hold that public ownership would of itself imme-
diately bring about an industrial and social
millennium. To hear some of these people talk
or rather shout one would suppose that public
ownership would in some mysterious way make
angels of the men who would be called upon to
administer it, All selfishness. incompetence and
dishonesty would at once disappear as If by
magic. and the widest dreams of the fabled
Utopia would be realized. The public. i'm fact
would get an absolutely perfect service for the
lowest possible cost. The point which these
people always ignore. however is the possi-
Iility that the elimination of the competitive
system 10y public ownership would practically
result in a service TO the public which. though
il might he honest. would he inferior and slip
shod. After installing it's cable system a few
years ago. at n cost of millions of dollars. the
Metropolitan Street Railway Company. of this
city, decided TO substitute the electric sys-
TEN for it. not primarily. perhaps, because il
wanted the public to have the best possible SER
vice but because it wished to head off any pos
sible rivals who might offer better service. SO
also Mr.. Carnegie did not hesitate TO tear out a
recently installed equipment in one of his mills
costing a million or more dollars when he dis
covered some better and more modern equip
ment TO take its place. In each case ii may he
said that the motive was prompted by selfish
ness but il was the sort of enlightened selfish
ness that always and inevitably benefits the
public In innumerable ways the competitive
system, with all its faults. has thus conferred
benefits upon the public no less valuable because
they happen TO be indirect and perhaps unin-
tended.
But in such cases as those have just men,
toned public ownership might conceiyably have
initiated against the interests of the public. To
make the case concrete let us suppose that the
street railways of this city had been owned by
the city. and that the question of substituting
electricity for the cable had come up before the
municipal authorities. One of two things might
have happened. Either the clamor of certain
taxpayers against burdening the city with the
enormous expense of the change might have
forced the authorities not 10 carry out the i'm
provement or IL might have been passed In such
a form that certain politicians the inside
would have made millions out of IL, while the
public would have found that the new service
was worse than the old. The dishonest admin
istration of public utilities must be taken into
account just as much as the dishonest admins
tration of private interests But if that We're not
sO-if in fact. public ownership insured an alb
sOlutely honest administratiOn-the experience
of public ownership in England shows that 1t
often results in checking initiative and prevent
ing the adoption OF Improvements and new in
ventions. I'm telephony" says a correspondent
of The London Standard I'VE are ten years
behind the times. thanks to the pOstOffice mo
'nopoly. The whole effort of the department
'seems 10 have been devoted 10 avoiding the
responsibility of providing telephone service
itself, and at the same time preventing any one
'else from doing il. Fearful of its telegraph
monopoly being touched. il has, 10 save prob
'lematical loss of a few thousa nds a year. in
"fiicted on the mercantile community disabilities
1.-THE loss through which must he reckOned by
hundreds of thousands. And 10 this loss must
"be added that of the manufacturing Industries
(which supply the necessary apparatus. We
"grudge good profit where il is due. We legis-
late so as 10 cripple good profits and then,
having cut off the chief incentive TO push and
progress wonder how do not get them
All this does not prove that public ownership
is undesirable, but il emphasizes the wisdom of
opposing any attempt TO adopt il before it can
be made practically workable.