The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1906-10-27
PUBLIC VS.. PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.

PUBLIC VS.. PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.
The vast majority of thinking people
are agreed that a business which can,
safely to the public interests, be en-
trusted to private ownership and con-
troll can be better and more cheaply
public one. There is a common ground
upon which those who are sincerely in
favor of municipal ownership from
proper motives and those who are OPP
posed to it can meet. The most po-
tent argument in favor of municipal
ownership and the only one that has
any force with those who are not poll
iticians is the improper interference by
public service corporations in politi-
cal affairs. Pubic service corporations
by attempting to dictate the election
of judges. aldermen and members Of
the legislature do more to promote u
sentiment in favor of public owner
ship THAI all the agitators and politi-
cal theorists combined could do. Those
who arc opposed to municipal owner
ship because of the great number of
employees that it would add to a city's
payroll and the opportunity it would
afford for building up a political ma
chine, can prevent the growth of mu-
nicipal ownership sentiment by voting
for public servants those who are
known tn be uncontrolled by the pub
lie service corporations. without
perhaps realizing it those who are OPP
posed to municipal ownership work
against their own interests by voting
for men who after election become the
servants of the corporations rather than
the people. Almost all people are in
favor OF proper regulation by the n,u-
inequalities of the public service cor
porations. 1t Is the improper and un>
lawful interference by the service cor
rorations themselves with proper
regulation by the people that/promotes
Il demand for municipal ownership.
The recent action of the Brooklyn
Transit company in disrcgardinz the
orders of a court lis an instance of Il
public service corporation working in
favor of municipal ownership. Ry
disreEardtng properly constituted au-
tlority these corporations are creating
a force which in time will destroy
them and leave no alternative to the
people except municiual ownership.
There arc few in Minneapolis who to-
day would favor the proposition of the
citys acquiring it's street railways and
adding to the payroll of tho city Il vast
army Of employees. Tho people are
content to leave the matter of trans
portntton to private enterprise so long
as that private enterprise does not in
terferc with the proper transaction of
the peoples business. 1t will be only
when the people are unable to manage
their own affairs because of this UNI
lawful Interference that a demand for
municipal ownership will become over
power!ing. If those who manage the
public service corporations could only
be made to understand this fact we
think there would be less cause for
complaint about the corporations in
terferng in the election of judges and
members OF the city council. We take
1t that the people OF this city are
practically unanimous in the demand
that interference OH the part of pub
lie service corporations in the election
of public servants must cease. Those
who arc opposed to municipal owner
ship, and at the present time they con-
stitutc u majority of the people, and
those who favor 1t from unselftsh mo-
tives car unite to promote the general
good by voting for candidates for the
Judiciary and for the different legis-
lative bodies who are known to be UNI
controlled by the corporations. Most
people realize that business can
much better be managed and owned
by private concerns than by the pub
lie. All know that the servants OF
private concerns are better fitted and
equipped for the positions which they
hold than arc those who are appointed
to positions as a reward for political
service.