The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1903-09-19
THE GEARY STREET BONDS.

THE Examiner in the body OF page displayed
in large type, returns to discussion OF the
Geary street Railroad bonds in which It says:
The opponents of the acquisition of the road make
the objection that it will the city to run 1t
than the road will bring in.
AS far as The Calls position is concerned it is un-
affected by any speculation to whether the road
will be operated by the city a profit loss. We
merely insist that the bonds acquire it be lien
upon the road only and not upon the city. II the
Examiner have any objections to that it will please
state them and come down out of the air and into
Geary street. 1t is quoting Mr.. Horace Platts
figures OF the private operation of the road to show
that it will pay the city profit. Mr.. Plats figures
are made upon what the road is doing and may do
under private ownership. They are positively
proof that it will do better under public
ownership.
We insist that the history of public ownership in
this country proves by analogy that the road will do
worse under public ownership but that has nothing
TO do with the demand Of the taxpayers that the
bonds shall be based on the road and not be lien
the city. In Massachusetts eighteen cities were
lighted by gas and electricity by private companies
Under the law Of that State when public ownership
is undertaken all private property in the same line
thai might compete has to be taken over, in
vate competitor. In the eighteen cities in question
the private companies were all making profit. The
same cities have now had several years experience in
public ownership with the result that the cost of light
is double what the private companies charged and
yet there is heavy annual deficit that has to be met
by general taxation.
We are only holding aloft the lamp of experience.
San Francisco may be exception in public
ship and may net profit where other cities have
netted loss. No say whether this will or
will not be the result of the experiment here The
real opponents OF public ownership those who,
like the Examiner, insist upon unbusinesslike be-
ginning by wanting to burden the whole city with
debt which the Geary-street road should bear alone
The city proposes to go into the business of
ming street railroad and to do it just private
corporation would by issuing bonds. The Exam
liner seems to think that it thinks the city will not
own the road unless these bonds a lien upon the
city and not upon the road. By parity of reasoning
the private corporation would its property if
the bonds for it based upon it alone. This is
rank nonsense from any business point of view. If
Mr. William Randolph Hearst is willing to buy the
bonds issued lien on the city, why is he not will
ing to buy them issued as a lien on the road alone?
He says: IF experience should prove that the city
cannot the road profit there will be much
lost" if the bonds are lien the city. We reply
that if the bonds lien on the road alone there
will be nothing lost if, as he says, private parties will
then be willing to lease it a high price for the
rent of the property must then pay the bonds and
interest and the taxpayers will lose nothing.
The popular demand that the proposed issue of
these bonds, made lien the city, be voted down
and that another proposition be submitted making
them lien on the road alone is not in opposition to
public ownership at ALL but is rather in favor of it by
forcing into such strict business lines will
tribute to its and lessen the chances for its
failure. If the Examiner can conure any reasons
why this should not be done let it conjure and print
the result OF its dvinatons in large bac5aced type
on its editorial page, that the taxpayers may know
what it thinks it thinks about the matter If
William Randolph Hearst will not buy the bonds
when based the road only why not?
An Oakland man recently secured a divorce on the