Mexico weekly ledger., 1903-01-01
rAvoRs MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP
]. N. Gross Gives a number Of Reasons
Why He Wants City Ownership
Of Light Plant

you invite discussion OF municipal
ownership, ! beg for space for this
short article. am In favor OF Mexico
owning and operating IN electric
light plant because: First, it seems
that we are TO remain forever IN dark
ness unless we do; second, those who
have taken interest enough in the
matter to inform themselves and
whose motives cannot be questioned
are universally in favor Of such a
move; third, no town in the state Of
Missouri that has made an intelligent
and reasonable investment In an cleo
trio light plant, uninluenced by poht-
ical bosses, would for a moment thirk
of giving up or selling its plant.
A number Of towns, perhaps, have
made mistakes and have been burden
cd with officers willing to sell their
souls to building promoters, but after
all, very few, II any, care to go back to
the old plan.
/ have taken pains to investigate
some reported failures and find that
the conditions are greatly magnitied
to the prejudice OF municipal owner
ship and evidence that justifies a sus-
picion that the howlers are paid for
bowling, or are demagogues seeking
political revenge or political advan-
tage.
You well know what it means to
have corporations against you and cor
porations Of every name and order are
contributing freely to check munich
pal ownership.
1t is the cause of the people without
a dollar against money that is organ
lied TO smother this growing senti-
ment among the people-money that
hires the best lawyers and the best
newspapers il need be.
Huntsville is given as a shining ex-
ample OF the failure of municipal
ownership. Huntsville knows nothing
OF an electric light plant. They Sc
cured a broken-down, secondhand gas
plant and got sick of it and by throw
ing in an electric light franchise made
a good bargain. What bearing has
this on the question In Mexico?
A favorite political trick to beat an
honest move is to load it down with
amendments, coupling with it some
thing else, and some are foolish enough
to bite at such bait, thereby ~endanger-
ing the main question.
Another bug-a-boo is the question
Of issuing bonds The word ''bonds''
scares some people very badly. They
don't stop to count the blessings along
with the fluctuations. Every town
and village in the State has issued
bunds to build school houses and very
few are found 10 say a word against it
We pay Hur bonds for school build
ings and scarcely notice the difference
IN our lakes. So, 900 would give us a
good plant, and the bonds can be
luated at 81 per cent. We need 80
arc lights, and these under contract
will cost US 50, 600 a year. By owning
a plant we can with the same amount
pay our interest and one $1,000 bond
every year, and a balance left for the
sinking fund; and as the interest be-
comes reduced two bonds could be
PAID annually. The emu received
from private lighting contracts will
more than pay for repairs and running
expenses.
Every member Of our honorable
Council. who has visited other towns
to investigate is In favor Of municipal
ownership. Then why can't we have
a chance to vote upon this question?
In closing l would call your attention
to IN extract from the st. Louis
CtroRiole, which after giving figures to
show the unbounded success OF NUM-
cipal ownership in England, has these
words:
And the partial failure Of NUM-
cipal ownership, where it has been
tried in this country, counts for moth
ing.
Here most experiments have been
made among enemies. The politicians
and Ihe corporations asked only
failure. They put rocks 10 the way,
and they were oyerjoyed il dishonesty
crept In and made the attempt to help
the people abortiye.
Everybody admits that it is a good
thing for a city to own and operate a
water works system. Why, Of %coursel
These things are coming. Their
coming will be fastened by abuses
and by the fact that they have been
made successful in England, acountry
King-ridden If you will, but un-
.~oubtedly well governed and progress
]. N. Cross.