The Saint Paul globe., 1905-04-09
THE cRUx OF MUNICIPAL OWN.
ERSHiP

Just as the whole country Is gazing
with interested attention at Chicago
to take lesson from her forthcoming
experiment in the municipal ownership
of street railways, SO will all students
of this question read with interest the
forceful speech Of Judge Dunno, mayor
elect. in New York, outlining the theo-
ries of the people and the practical pro-
gramme that he represents. 1t is a
mastery address, and deals vigorously
and finally with some of the stock OBJ
jections most commonly advanced and
most generally relied ON to oppose the
principle of municipal ownership.
Judge Dunno says that there are only
two serious objections raised against
the socialistic system. The first is that
it would tend to build up a great polit-
ical machine. This he answers by say
ing that a prerequisite Of municipal
ownership is a strict civil service law,
establishing tests of fitness, by which
the conduct of such affairs shall be di-
vorced wholly from party politics. We
may say that the experience of other
the validity of this claim. 1t has been
found that where a city is in control Of
political machine no department
safeguard by a civil service law is
saved from the irruption of the spoils-
men. Not only do they get in, but
under the protection of such law they
cannot be got out if a reform admin
istration succeeds to power. However,
we pass this by for the present.
The second objection noted by Judge
Dunno is that a city cannot, without
unduly burdening itself with debt, ap-
ply the capital necessary to purchase
and operate public utilities. A city can
finance such concerns as effectively as
private individual Certificates can
be issued against the income to be de-
rived from operation, and receipts will
not only carry interest on these, but
pay off the principal. We do not see
that the financial problem presents any
serious difficulty.
In this discussion, however, Judge
Dunno never even alluded to the one
objection to municipal ownership that
seems insuperable to all thoughtful stu
dents of economic theory and practical
fact. 1t is an objection that seems to
have been established by experience. We
state it again in the form in which ii
has often appeared in these columns,
without ever receiving a hint Of an
swer from the other side. II public
utilities are owned by a municipality,
they must be managed by the same
people who manage that municipalities
other affairs. Now the record Of mu-
nicipal government throughout the
United States. with rare exceptions, is
record of extravaganza and corrup-
tion.
The struggle of the people almost
everywhere is to root out graft; and the
enlargement of opportunity simply
widens the circle within which looting
may be practiced with impunity and
profit. We do not expect from the same
stock both figs and thistles. II city
councils and administrations on the
whole are incompetent and corrupt in
the discharge of lesser duties, and use
lesser opportunities for purposes of pill
lage, what must we expect of them in
the larger and more fruitful field :?
There is no security for the public
against the unparalleled opportunity
to plunder that the ownership of public
utilities involves. AS matter of fact,
| experiences like that of PHILADELPHIA
with her gas interest establish the
proposition; and the whole condition of
municipal government in America TODAY
is protest and warning against mu-
nicipal control of concerns whose an
nual dealings are expressed in millions.
This is the crux of the municipal
ownership question. It Is the bridge
| that we must cross before we can ever
stand with safety on the opposite bank.
The central and vital objection to mu-
nicipal ownership is that the general
average of municipal governments not
only offers us no guarantee of efficiency
and honesty in the conduct of big en-
terprise, but warns us most Imperative
ly against any such experiment and
tells us that it must be a colossal fall
ure. All human wisdom is founded
upon past experierN. 1t is idle to
grasp for beautiful theory when the
history of the race tells US that IT is
false.
The fundamental weakness of tha
municipal ownership theory is the fun
damental weakness OF the socialistic
idea, to which It is allied and of which
II Is forerunner. The glittering edi-
aoe which 1t is sought to build cannot