The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1905-04-23
MUNICIPAL, OWNERSHIP

Since the recent election i'll Chicago,
where the Democracy scored decided
and significant success III favor ct mt
nicipal ownership, the greatest interest
in this question has been aroused III
cities and towns throughout the United
States where the public utilities arc IN
the control OF individuals or corpora
tons.
In Shreveport, for instance there is a
strong and positive undcr-ctrrent IN
favor of municipal ownership, which
will develop openly whenever an oppor-
tunity is offered for such pronounce
ment In the past ten years this scrtl-
ment has grown all-powerful as lndl-
Gated in Chicago, where the Republicans
had for candidate John Maynard Har:-
Ian, a gentleman of high character per
sonally popular and backed by the most
powerful influences of corporations. nc
success of Judge Dunno, the Demo-
cratic candidate, had pitched his cam
paign on we'll defined principles, involv-
ing municipal ownership. 1t would not
have been possible to have secured IN
Chicago ten years ago such all emphatic
endorsement of the doctrine, Or policy.
Of municipal ownership.
The strong argument in favor OF mu-
nicipal ownership is that if individuals
and corporations can make money out OF
the public utilities, that such profit
should be reserved to the people by
adopting and maintaining policy OF
municipal ownership. 1t may be con-
coded, in general sense, that one Of the
greatest deterrent to municipal owner
ship has been in the belief that munich
palities could not ma mage such utilities
could be obtained from individuals Or
corporations, but the absurdity of this
fallacy has been demonstrated in many
cities and towns where efficient service
has been coupled with satisfactory
profits.
In this connection it may be men,
toned that one of the strong pleas as
sumed against municipal ownership is
that the service could not be maintained
on strictly business principles. strength
enei with the declaration that public
utilities, if controlled by the municipali-
ties, would be used to pay political debts,
as rewards for services rendered. This
objection, however, as others, which ap-
ply to the public service, may be brushed
aside as somewhat nonsensical
In the contest in Chicago every shift
and every means and every device which
could come from the suggestive brains
OF the most powerful and influential OPP
ponents of municipal ownership were
used and urged in vain. The people
reasoned logically that if the individuals
and the private corporations could de-
rive profits aggregating millions from
the public utilities, why should not the
people, through municipal ownership,
snare IN the public proht?
A strong argument in favor of munici-
pal ownership is that in large cities, and
in the metropolis of the size of Chicago,
individuals and private corporations.
seeking special privileges, have de-
bauched and corrupted officials and that
whenever the public utilities are placed
in the control of municipalities, the per-
nicious influence of the corporations
having been displaced, the tone and the
character of the representatives of the
people have been improved, and there
fore it is only question of time when
the public utilities must pass from pri
vate ownership to the control of munich
-.