The Minneapolis journal., 1904-12-27

SASSS
the very aldermen who are to choose the
arbitrator upon behalf of the city, and the
maximum rates fixed by such board OF ar
bitrators will permit the company to
continue to rob the. people by excessive
rates. F& 500
These objections to the proposed ordi-
nance upon these broad grounds are suf-
t1cient to defeat it regardless of just OBJ
jections that can be made to minor CON
ditions of the ordinance. But some of
the minor conditions of the proposed Or
dinance are so Objectionable as: to be
sufficient reasons in themselves for the
vetoing of the ordinance. 5s
There is no reason Why the wholesale
principle should be applied in the sup
plying of electricity With the plant con-.
| structed and the wires maintained, there
is no reason why the big consumers
should get better rates than the small
consumers, and yet by the terms of this
proposed ordinance the small consumer
| may be required to pay 10 cents for
| what the big consumer may be required
| to- pay only s cents Do YOU think that
the majority of the voters Of the city
Of Minneapolis would favor such pro-
vision? ~ 81 -.H
The Gross Earnings Tax. - T.
The gross earnings tax imposed by the
ordinance is a deluson and snare. In
!
an unjust tax: People should not be
obliged to support their government in
proportion as they use electric light or
power. There should be no tax upon the
+ earnings, but the rate should be so re-
duced that the company will not earn
more than reasonable. rate of profit.
But the proposed ordinance does not pro-
pose to collect a gross earnings tax from
the company If the city patronizes the
| 111, +o1y; y;,o ioif frnrY a
the maximum rate provided in the ord1-
nance. 4 >''E,'t .' =" IL 1'r'@~ 81" -
There is nothing in the ordinance in
Equestion to prevent all Of the stock of the
new company being owned by the same
people who own the stock of the General
Electric company, and the opposition OF
the old company to the granting of this
so feeble that am suspicious that those
interested in the old company are in
terested in the new. But If not now
they may be in the future.
Veto 1.-The Inroposed ordinance. and tel
the; people Gol this city that the granting
, Iof this new franchise will not furnish
. fthat competition so necessary to regulate
the price so that the owner will no
/ realize more than an, ordinary rate. O.
profit. >-%.:. ~-~. =. 49,
- There can't be companies enough II
the streets to avoid regulation. Witt
two or more companies, the companie
must be regulated or we will be robbed
, Plea for Public Ownership.
+ You should veto this ordinance and tel
, 1.-THE people that your reasons for do1ni
! so are that there is only one just solu
: t1on of the question of public servie
). ! In cities and that is ownership by tn
public Tell them that regulation by tn
public of public service corporations ha
a been and is failure, that instead c
= the cities regulating the companies, tn
q companies have regulated the cities b
fcontrolIing their officials or enough {
4 them to influence legislation. ~:
. There is another thing that should
: ktold also, If the city is not to own an
= foperate,a viz It is the law in this stat
>. declared to- be so by: our supreme cour
# 4 that in regulating the charges of "a pub
8, He service corpora ton, the basis Of prot
"a is : the reasonable cost Of reproduci1
~ the pant,os so that If the city should III
=. dertake to regulate the rates thru tt
. coarts the rates could not be reduce
y. below what would net the company
"a 4feasohable rate of profit upon what
ID would cost sto@reproduce the plant. Th
=. is the rule,s whether there be one or
II dozen compapies; the more the cor
to panies, the more the cost to reproduc
q. and the. more money that must be earn
= to- pay 'dividends upon the amount:
other words, the more companies the
are IN this business, the higher t.
rL 1price, Of, electricity may be, or, to p
+. lit differently ,and perhaps more exae
ba Ilv,sif There were only one company y
- could compel it ito furnish electricity
~ Eaa lesser ratez4than we could compel a
II Il one company if9there were more tn
- lso11eS company. r. x.- -
e ~, - The proposed ordinance gives the COZ
"a pany ninety days to accept; veto it a
he give the people of the city ninety da
to consider it. We ought to reflect
,s+ least ninety days before we empov
~ anyone to rob us for thirty years.
rs 4 r beg Of. you to veto the ordinar
ng for these and other reasons that
ae occur to you.
nas as /, am going to cause this letter to
~ ~ published in our daily papers, if I c.
~ ~ to induce others. to go to you with 81
~ additional reasons as may occur to the
tts Yours very respectfully, -. =" =
,t:*5/ p. D. Larrabee
+. .Sqti& 'Ff