New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-05-23
DEBATE CITY OWNERSHIP.
DIR ABBOTT FAVORS 1T.
d. Cady Herrich Calls 1t Merely a
Question Of Erpediency.

DIR LYMAN Abbott and ex-Judge D. Cady Her
rick chose opposite sides OF the municipal owner
ship question, as applied TO New-York City, last
night at the dinner Of the Reform Club held in
the rooms of the National Arts Club No. 81 West
84th-st. The other speakers of the evening were
Frederick w Hinrichs. of Brooklyn, and Louis F.
Post. Editor of The Republic" of Chicago, who
represented Mayor Dunno. About one hundred
guests present President J. G. Agar presided.
DR.. Abbott, the first speaker said:
all utilities in which the general public is interest
ed by the municipality. There are three forms Of
the many, who are believed unable to rule prop
prevents aggression from without and protects
property and life within, but permits each citizen
in which it is recognized that society is really
single 0Tganzea 2ody; with an the attributes OF
ownership far less than from corrupt combi-
porations. Graft is not greater politics than in
commercial life It is strain that runs through
operate for the education and for the water supply
Can they DO so for Lighting and transportation? !
develoment where they can. Ny last word. the text
for my entire speech, is: The for the evils OF
democracy is always more democracy.
Ex-Judge Herrick said in part:
believe that many of the evils of this city come
from the neglect of the best citizens to participate
TO the legislature instead of demanding home rule.
They are often too intent on making money to get
panaGea is municipal ownership This means ms uti,
matelV the realization OF the brotherhood or man
wherein all share and share alike. Most great
undertakings have the interests of all the people,
but municipal ownership of anything beyond those
activities that protect life and health is a step
dangerous grounds.
If you consider your officials incompetent, why
in Heavens should you add to their re
sponsibilities? If I were in charge of political
just those activities that you purpose placing under
municipal control What magnificent opportun-
ity for graft" With municipal ownership, either
the trade unions would be crushed, or would rule
everything. Why try municipal ownership before
it has been tried thoroughly IN other cities? There
Mr.. Post told of the success of municipal owner
ship IN Chicago and said in part:
Municipal ownership Of public utilities is not
cialsn The test is simple. 1t is merely question
of whether the government do its own business
and leave other business alone. Wherever there Is
inherent necessity for government grant in
order to do q business. that business is a public
business, and should be done by the public. If no
business, and should not be taken over.
Mr. Hinrichs said in part:
My Investigations as one of the committee on
water supply of the Merchants Association taught
that municipal ownership of water plants
and in the United States the tendency away
from private ownership and distribution to public
| ownership and distribution, to the manifest bene
Mt of the great body Of consumers. The city has
4 undertaken the educate of children and
{ II does 1t well The city builds and maintains its
and TO the distributing of the water to consumers
but some now tell us that 1t is dangerous socialism
10 have the city build lighting plant and dis
tribute gas and electricity to private consumers.