Omaha daily bee., 1905-08-03

MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP AND POLITICS.
A few months ago James Dalrymple,
manager of the Glasgow street railroads,
which are operated under municipal own
ership, made hasty inspection of street
railways in American cities and espe-
cially those of Chicago with the express
purpose of presenting his conclusions as
to the feasibility of manipulating the
Chicago street railways. Mr.. Dalrymple,
to the surprise of many, gave 1t out that
municipal ownership cannot be adopted
with success in American cities because
politics plays a predominant part in the
government of American cities, and as a
natural consequence municipal owner
ship would multiply and intensity the
graft and corruption that has brought
American municipal government into
such general disrepute.
Mr.. Dalrymple also noted incidentally
that municipal ownership in America
excludes freedom Of individual enter
prise. In Scotland, where the principle
Of municipal ownership is generally ap-
piled, individual enterprise is at liberty
to compete with municipal enterprise.
While municipal ownership is a fixed
policy of municipal administration there
is no prohibition against private invest
ment or service.
The trouble with Mr. Dalrymple's half
baked conclusions is that he mistakes
fhn on I,n To 20 ho
oblivious of the fact that the main source
of municipal graft in American cities is
the private ownership of public utilities.
The st. Louis boodlers and the Milwau-
kee boodlers as we'll as the Philadelphia
grafters were all infected by the same
virus-the systematic bribery Of council
men and municipal officials by the fran
chised corporations.
The sincere reformer who wants the
affairs of American cities administered
on business principles finds himself seri-
ously perplexed. Take for example the
recent decision rendered by Judge Mum
ger in the Omaha water works case. If
finally affirmed by the higher courts its
practical effect would be to place not
only this municipality, but every other
city whose public utilities are partly or
wholly operated by private corporations
between the devil and the deep sea. If
contracts made by cities with public
utility corporations can be modified or
abrogated before their expiration by city
councils or public utility boards, public
utility corporations have but one alterna-
tive-they must either own the mayor
and council or the boards that are at
| liberty to change agreed rates for light
water, heat and power, or they must
abandon the field altogether and force
their plants on their own terms. If they
choose the former course corruption and
! jObbery in municipal government will
run riot. II they choose the latter course
the city will have the works and the poll
ticians will manage them, unless the
property owners in each community
come to the rescue and place business
men Of the most approved integrity in
control. Hlgh-grade business men are
rarely willing TO serve the public in
American cities and many Of them could
not be elected If they were willing tc
serve
Individual enterprise is at liberty tC
compete with municipal enterprise IN
America Just as 1t Is in Scotland, but
few American capitalists would be fool
hardy enough to undertake to compete
with the municipalities in the supply OF
water, gas, electric lights telephones Of
street railways unless they controlled
the municipal governments and were
confident Of being able to hold both ends
Of the competition. In the very nature
of things municipal public utility plants
are operated under pressure OF publ,
sentiment, which might persistently ere
ate deficits for the benefit OF consumer
at the, expense of the property owneri
and taxpayers. No private corporation
operating a public utility plant in com
petition with municipal plant coulC
match that and survive.
State Treasurer Mortensen's fnancia
exhibit shows that the permanent schOo
| funds nPa amin niIiup nm. in tho traa q