The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-11-08
Municipal Ownership In Great
Rritain

N uillSiPdi 1WAASA slip IA Nj Cdt
Britain.
In q late number of the Journal of
Meyer has compiled some municipal
ownership figures based upon experiences
in Great Britain. which nrc of decided
interest 10 students OF that important
tcpic. Professor Meyers opinions are
entitled to the most serious considera-
ton. His Investigations in this field.
I>extendlng over the last twelve years. and
lis recent Invaluable book on railway
rate regulation and government owner
ship generally, have elevated him to a
position of distinct authority. However,
ir the present article, Professor Meyer
in no sense relies upon the seductive
rersuaslveness of his own opinion. He
merely arrays a series of very speaking
figures. and allows the reader to draw
Lis own conclusions. 1T is now time,
the says. ITO give the exact facts and
leave theorizing to the doctrinaires."
Professor Meyers exact facts, to rem
der them in a word, show that the effect
OF municipal ownership In the United
Kingdom has been virtually TO paralyze
several most important classes of indus
trial development To consider at this
time only the question of street railways,
ii is significant that the United States,
which has relied wholly upon private cap
tal and enterprise for development in this
direction, has outstrpped in every way
the United Kingdom. where policy of
municipal control obtains. A most in
teresting table here gotten together for
us. shows that in 1852. OF towns in the
United States having population of
500 and less than 5000, not less than
forty-one per cent. were supplied With
street railways, and that all towns and
cities OF 1900 and more inhabitants were
supplied with them in the United
Kingdom. on the other hand. in the
year 1913, of towns of 500 and less than
SEQ inhabitants just eleven per cent.
ware equipped with street railways; OF
towns of 1900 and less than 20.ppJ the
percentage in squestion was Thirty; and
ii is not until we reach cities OF 800
and more inila bitants that We can count
upon invariably findig the facilities OF
street railways.
Viewing the same question from the
ton and street railway mileage, the
discrepancy between the TWO countries
is no less remarkable and significant.
IT this country twenty-four per cent. Of
and towns here brought together for
comparison, have more than one mile of
street railway for every 100 people; in
Great Britain not Il single town has
thirty-threc per cent. OF the urban dis
tricts have a.mile Of street railway ,or
each 1000 10 1,4s9 people; in Great Britain
not single district has reached this
proportion. In this country there Is no
case of less than one mile for every
5000 inhabitants: In Great Britain, in ten
per cent of the cases there was but one
was but one mile FOR each 1900 10
1892 people. and in more than three
per cent. Of teh cases there was but one
mile for every 1900 TO 5000 people.
In June. 1902, the United States had a
total Of urban street railway track
mileage Of 1900; almost year later the
figures show that the United Kingdom
had nut $500 miles. In other words, the
people living in the cities and towns Of
Great Britain had less than one fourth
by people similarly situated In the
United States.
This extraordinary deficiency in the
streete railway service of Great Britain
is not at al due TO the fact that our
| British cousins lack either enterprise or
capital. 1t is attributable solely TO the
Tramways Act OF 1870, which has ef-
| fectually deferred them from using these
| endowments. Tho paralyzing feature o!
this act is that the municipality Is au,
| thorized by ii 10 purchase, after the ex
| plration Of a brief initial charter, sucf
street railway companies as 1t deems
wise TO acquire, Naturally, this act hat
not been on The statute books Yer,
long before the promoter and the CAPT
talist learned that IL was not q PAYING
venture to expend his energy and cap
ital IN the building Of street raiiwa.
OF doubtful success. With no other re
ward in sight than that. II he did max
4 1t a success the township would prompt.
take 1t away from him, The basis of pur
chase authorized by law is merely at III
cost Of replacement, with no allowanc,
whatever for good will. earning-power
or even past losses. The sstule promote
has been justifably ehary Of any sue.