The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-06-16
Municipal Ownership Not Mu-
nicipal Ownership.

Perhaps the subject that is now occu-
pying the largest space in the minds
Of those interested in the government
of cities Is tho question Of municipal
ownership and operation Of public utili-
ties such as street car lines, gas works,
water works and electric lighting plants!
1t seems to be a fair proposition that
where the value Of such IN utility is
increased by the increase of population
without any effort on the part of the
owners. that there Is an unearned value,
which does not fairly belong to those
who happen to own these utilities. 1t is
generally contended, therefore, that these
utilities, as they get their value from
the people who use them, should be
owned by the people. With this propo-
sition we most cordially agree
The principal corolary to the main
proposition, however, is the question::
Shall these public utilities though own
ed by the public, be operated by the
public or by lcssees? This Is the real
practical problem of the day.
After the fullest examination. New
York city determined that its great
public utility, the Subway should be
built and owned by the city, but oper-
ated by lcssecs. This is the most nota-
Bile instance of very decisive action after
full examination of the subject of NUM-
cipal operation of public utility And
the reasons are obvious to any rejecting
mind Vhora a L.,
on the most advantageous terms. the
public is assured Of the best service, OF
a satisfactory return for its investment,
and that it will enjoy at some future
time the results of the Increased value
in the property. There is no interest
In municipal bodies to- slack their hands
in the management of the utility orto
overlook neglect or incompctency. Tie
lcssecs are held to rigid accountability
without lmpalring the public ownership
On the other hand. where the public
not only owns, but operates these utli-
ties. 1t has been almost the universal
experience that they have been lncompc-
tently and cxtravagantly managed, and
that conditions have been endured be.
cause utility WAS under municipal
management that would not have been
tolerated for one instant, II the utility
had been operated by private persons.
In consequence of this, the public have
not only suffered in service, but In rocket.
1t is well-nigh impossible for any system
OF municipal management to give the
intnngn cnnnryjsinp
methods that would be applied by pri-
vate persons
Who believes that II the gas works
and water works Of Richmond had pecn
operated by private persons under lease
from the city. that the people Of Rich
mond would have tolerated from such
persons what they have endured without,
murmur because. through their council
men, they We're doing it themselves? II
any person other than the City Council
had allowed the water that was sup
piled TO our citizens 10 be Of the charac-
ter that It has been for SO many years,
here would have been an cutlery amount
ing almost to instruction.
As TO the gas works. We are now
undertaking to find out something about
them, through an expert, And yet, In
face OF this lamcntablc experience, 1t is
proposed TO start an electric plant which
the city Is no better qualified 10 manage
than either of its other public utilities
It IL very interesting to read tho testl-
r.ony of the manager Of the great Glas-
gov street railway In regard to munich
pal management of public utilities in the
country
James Dalrymple Of Glasgow, says he
has seen enough of this country TO be
convinced that municipal ownership Will
never do in. a republic, and tina, The idea
is one Of the great dangers with which
the people of this country must contend.
ITO put street railroads. gas works.
telephone companies. etc, under municl-
pal ownership" he said this evening.
would be 10 create a political machine
in every large city that would be simply
inpregnable These political machines arc
always strong enough with their con-