The San Francisco call., 1903-09-10
THE GEARY STREET ROAD.

$1,000 --~
Policy"
Now that is just what we want to make IT, cold
business proposition by making the bonds lien on
the road only. Unless the road will carry the bonds
it is not a cold business proposition at all, but
plan to compel the taxpayers of the whole city to
furnish capital invest in business which will not
carry its own credit and pay its cost principal and
interest.
The Examiner fights against the only cold busl-
ness policy that is proposed in the matter and de-
mands that the taxpayers furnish the capital and pay
the interest for business which it also declares
is to be amply able to sustain Itself Arguing to that
end it says after introducing imaginary Taxpayer
who objects to making the bonds lien on the city;
you won't have to pay it. The road is already pay
ing $4,000 year on the bonded debt the present
owners have placed it. and gives them from S25,-
900 to $4,000 year in addition, after paying all
operating expenses, repairs and the like You will
have from 100000 to $4,000 year to put into pay
ing off the debt giving better service, paying better
wages and setting aside good income for yourself"
The imaginary taxpayer might we'll answer the
Examiner "If that is the case what is the need OF
making the bonds a lien on the whole city, or taking
the taxpayers money at ALP If the business is going
pay such fine profit why not place the bonds and
their interest the road itself, and leave the gen
era fund OF the city free for the purposes Of gov
ernment? The city will the road and it as
business, and if it pay its own interest sinking
fund and running expenses and make a profit. that
will go into the general fund.- anyway, or public
ownership may be vindicated by giving those who
use the road a lower fare. If the road would
pay, and yet public necessity that would be
argument for making all the taxpayers furnish the
capital But if it is to pay that is an unanswerabe
reason why the bonds should be the road alone
and lien the city.
If the Examiners imaginary taxpayer were man
Of good sense he would make that answer and vote
against bonding the city for business declared by
its proponents be capable of supporting itself and
paying profit besides
1t may be noticed that in the bond proposition
there is no guaranty of separation of accounts If the
road earn profits there is provision for keeping
them separate for payment of interest and sinking
fund, is there any provision for such accounting
will let the people know whether there is profit
loss in operating the road.
1t will be observed that everything offered by the
Examiner SO far, directly supports demand that
the bonds rest the road and on the taxpay-
ers If the road is to pay the large profit that is
predicted it needs support from the taxpayers AS
for marketing the bonds and getting the money to
enter upon the experiment of public ownership, no
doubt Mr.. William Randolph Hearst will buy the
bonds He is a multi millionaire and $4,000 is a
mere trihe to him. His paper is sure that the road
is to be great success, and will a large profit
and he IS advocate OF public ownership of all pub
lie utilities, even to the appropriation of coal
mines, and he should put up this money gladly and
take the bonds, based on the road alone. The tax
payers would be glad to get' something from him
more substantial than wind.
If they have to put up $4,000 and its interest un
maturity have Maid ST 400 900 for he
Geary-street road AS it is business investment its
operation should pay interest on that sum, which is
not profit, but interest on capital That interest will
amount $4,000 per So the road must per-
petuay its operating expenses its repairs and
maintenance and $4,000 year interest on its coss
and anything over that may be called profit. 1t will
be seen that from this cold business view of it the
Examiners fine income" becomes a dssolvng view
and perhaps that is the reason why the Hon. William
Randolph Hearst has not offered to take the bonds
He is entirely willing try experiments that cost
million and half at the expense of the taxpayers
but wants to change the subject when it is proposed
that he risk something himself
We affirm that unless the bonds are based on
the road alone, and ITS accounts kept as separate
as they would be by private corporation, the peo-
pie will know whether the road pays expenses
or If kept separate a business matter, with
out connection merger with the general or other
funds of the city, the roads success may be known
and judged its failure exposed and corrected The
Examiner imaginary parties, holding their i'm
agnary money in their imaginary fists ready to lease
the road if the city fail in running it. That may be
so, but they will be just as ready if the bonds are a
lien the road and not the city. But it is not
well to mix prophecy and business. The road run
as public utility by the city, may be success
Basng the bonds the plant only will not hinder
but rather help success by compelling the application
of business principles in its administration. If be
failure making it carry its own bonds will in no
way contribute to that failure Hence the unntelIi-
gent outgvngs of the Examiner far disclose moth
ing in favor of making the bonds lien on the city,
but demonstrate the capacity of the property to
carry its bonds If the taxpayers are wise they
will have it so.