The San Francisco call., 1903-09-03
PUBLIC UTILITY BONDS.

IL
into various branches of business by the pur-
chase or creation of public utilities. That term
had in the beginning definite and restricted mean
ing, but its meaning is indefinitely extended. In
the experience of New Zealand it is taken to mean
public ownership of lands and the founding and ad-
ministration of life insurance the guarantee of work
and wages with the state d employer, and long
list of other things that considered far
beyond the purpose of government.
We are just entering upon a policy that elsewhere
has worked out to disuse exhaustion. New Zea-
land has borrowed money her general credit for
the pushing of her business enterprises and is in
such condition that failures and deficits not
chargeable to the business in which they occur but
pass to the state and burden the general credit
until public creditors clamorng for their money
or protesting against further impairment of their
security.
Public ownership and administration of utilities was
not dreamed of by the statesmen who founded our
system and left out of the calculations of those
who originated adapted scheme of municipal
government. Where it has long existed it is i'm
possible ascertain its merits or its dement's be-
cause Its administration is merged chaotically with
the purely political purposes of government that its
unravelng is the despair Of accountants and actu-
aries Only thing is known Everywhere there
measurable, prove that they equal corporate profits
in similar lines of business When the cause of waste
Is sought, the wisest advocates of public ownership
s7in its wsest opponents in admitting that it lies
n separating the bonds for public plants and the
cost OF their administration from the plants them
selves
Recent Investigations show that public utilities un-
der city ownership costly than under pri-
vate ownership Chicago runs municipal electric
light plant recent investigation by the city's ex
pert accountant discloses these facts That during
the whole period Of city ownership from 1888 to 1900
the average annual cost per light was $I42 49, and
in one year it $500 A. The private company
which supplies Cleveland charged only $Q4 80 per arc
light The apparent cost per arc light supplied by
the public plant in Detroit is $78 but sinking fund
interest and expenses charged off to the general fund
bring the cost up 500 y shown by the sitting
OF the accounts by experts.
1t will be seen that the taxpayer of Detroit was
deceived when told that his light was costing him the
lesser sum. That deception was made possible by
separating debt interest and expense from the plant
and putting them upon the general fund Surely
these experiences which are common to the history
OF public plants in every large city in the Union
should teach and exhort this city and Oakland to
begin the public utility policy in the right way, which
is the business way
Besides this there is question Of confiscaory tax
alton involved. Why should property remote from
the Geary street road be taxed to acquire and run
as public enterprise when it has no share in its
benefits and use of the public convenience which
It supplies? Why should all the taxpayers south
OF Market have their tax burden already heavy in
creased to supply those who live on the Geary street
road the means of transportation? Are the Geary
street people doing anything for those who live and
pay taxes south of Market street? No they in no
way reclprocate, nor propose to reciprocate SO in
Oakland there is very large number of taxpayers
who have their own water supply The private water
company in that city does not reach them It can
not charge them anything. They are beyond its
control II CITY water bonds are based upon the
plant TO be created by them these non-users will con-
tiiue to be independent but if the bonds are lien
upon the city every taxpayer contribute whether
he is a user or a non-user
While this phase of the question, in respect TO
water, may be abridged in its seeming Importance
because the non-users in a minority the tax
alton OF one man only for benefit he does not share
nor need to share, is violation OF his rights which
tolerated, may in other matters be indefinitely ex-
tended so that large OF taxpayers may be in
volved in confscation In the case of the Gearv
street road there is no such mitigation The large
majority are to be taxed for the benefit of small
minority The independence of our people began in
protest against taxation without representation Is
not taxation without benefit, or the possibility of
benefit, bad. worse?
IF reoorte from various oar+e of