, 1902-05-03

He argued that the utilities could be
controlled either by city regulations or
by state laws and gave statistics from
Francisco and st. Clair to show that
private companies could produce more
cheaply and would render nor efici.
ent service.
Sheridan nowaey took up Mr.. Crit,
fms argument and proved that 1t was
impossible for the private company to
produce any cheaper. substantiating
his argument by quoting statistics
taken from So per cent Of the private
utilities in the United States showing
that they actually did SO. He showed
co~nclusively by statistics that the aver
age the municipality produced water
Is per cent cheaper than the private
company. while for gas the difference
in favor of public ownership was even
greater. While some plants that were
privately owned did show small gains
over public ownership. yet in the
others the gain by private owe public
ownership was 81 great that there
could be no doubt but that the public
was the cheaper producer. However,
granting that the private company
could produce more cheaply than the
public, still the cost to the
would no be any less because in ad-
dition to the legitimate profits, the in
terest on the investment, there would
be the immense illegimate profit which
the owners would insist On having.
Mr.. Thomas. for the negative. said
that Mr.. Ely, who had been quoted by
the affirmative. was altogether too light
to be considered as an authority in this
case. He himself then went on to
quote from Mr.. Ely in support Of the
arguments he advocated against public
ownership. He declared that corrup-
ton would result from public owner
ship and that the men in possession Of
the important Offices were all corrupt
by nature and would use every means
to avenge their private grudges and
advance their own ambitions. He
tried to prove that ineficiency result
ed from private ownership and said
that the people were d%istrustful Of their
officers.
Mr.. Tidball proved that municipal
ownership vas more efficient in its SER
vice, and that it was, and must be from
its very nature, inexpensive.
He showed that corruption could o
exist under public ownership as under
private and gave instances in support
OF assertion. He then took up the argu-
ments of the negative in refutatiOn.
Mr.. C. F. Canine, in behalf Of the
negative, said that public ownership
was only IN Heal theory and not prac-
teal in its application; that 1t would
not improve social conditions; that
there vas no way In which the city
could procure ownership of the utilities
as they were too expensive and there
we're legal restrictions in the way; and
that adoption of public ownership
would be q return to the medieval feu-
dalism.
Mr.. Tidball in rebuttal demonstrate
ed how the public utilities could be pro-
cured by the city from the private own.
ers. He said that the city really lost
nothing by losing the taxes which the
private companies would pay as they
saved more than that amount in the
difference in rates. He brought for
ward the fact that So per cent Of the
cities in the United States owned and
successfully operated their water sys-
TENS and that no valid argument had
been produced to show why they could
not operate the other public utilities
just az we'll.
Mr.. Holiday then announced that the
Young ladies' of the university would