Omaha daily bee., 1903-03-22

exposition of 1873. Its Introduction and
adoption in this country for both private
and public illumination is a matter of the
last twenty years.
The application Of electricity to lighting
and its perfection for practical uses came
at a peculiar period Of our history, 30 far
as concerns the question of municipal own
ership. Municipal ownership OF various
public services had been tried by American
cities with varying results. The experience
with municipal plants for the distribution
of water had been eminently successful,
while the few experiments with municipal
gas works were still the subject Of lively
contention. II was a period in which our
municipalities were busily engaged In nu-
merous costly public improvements urgently
demanded to meet the needs of rapidly
growing populations. The defective condi-
ton OF legislation and the meager powers
reposed in our municipal corporations con-
stituted serious obstacles to public owner
ship and the cities were, therefore. for the
most part. helpless, as well as unprepared
to take on the new functions such as would
have been required by the installation Of an
electric lighting plant. AS a result. for
nearly twenty years the discussion OF mu-
nicipal ownership OF electric lighting has
IOnAAhlE0 RAO ~ VIII AALA "hAAN a ~
much Roadway has been made in the direc-
ton Of arousing popular sentiment to the
advantages of municipal ownership, It must
be admitted that public opinion Ia as yet
by no means firmly crystallized.
Some Settled Points.
1 believe we can all agree that several
important points have been definitely settled
beyond serious dispute.
1. Electric lighting is a monopolistic in
dustry. In the early discussion of mu-
nicipal ownership the principal argument
on the side Of the lighting corporations
was that all the evils and abuses com
planned Of would right themselves under
the benehcent operation OF the law of COM
petition. II the people Of any city were
dissatisfied with the character OF the sery-
ice rendered, or the price charged. all they
had to do was to charter another electric
lighting company and transfer their patron
age to the one that offered the better terms.
The history OF electric lighting both here
and abroad completely diseredits this as
sumption. Nowhere has competition been
effective. Everywhere has combination
been manifested. Even where competing
/ companies were originally chartered and
enfranchised, they have all been merged
into one organization, or have divided
territory. completely excluding competition
II is needless to 90 into further details OF
this point. Both sides will agree that com.
petition in electric lighting is unnecessary
and undesirable. that a duplicate electric
lighting service for the same territory con.
stitutes an economic waste making neces,
sary higher charges than would be require;
for a single unihed plant. A potential com
petition exists between electricity, gas
gasoline and other lighting agencies, bu
competition as a r~egulative force betwee;
rival electric lighting concerns is out o
the question.
Not n Private Busihess.
2. Electric lighting is a public or semi
public rather than a private undertaking
The very nature Of the business invests /
with a public character. A corporation
eannot be launched to go into the bushes
Of supplying electricity for light and powe
on the same plan that a corporation woul
be formed to embark into the manufactur
Of farm machinery. The plea that IN
public has no interest in the condition
under which electric lighting concerns %