The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1906-06-22
Municipal Ownership of
X Public Utilities. -
Grafton of Henry A. SinC0Ck
hiQh School Commencement
Class of 'O6.

High School Commencement !;
Class of 'O6. t
Among the many important ques-
tons which must be worked out by
this generation is that one of Mu-
nicipal Ownership of Public Utili-
ties. BY municipal ownership l
mean particularly city ownership of
all public facilities-as lighting,
street car lines and water plants,
along with some others.
Those persons believing in true
democracy are working for this one
great end, and for various reasons.
They believe competition should be
eliminated from these lines. For
instance, take a city having two
lighting plants. For while COM
petition is in effect and we have
cheap rates, but it ends in the strong
er driving out the weaker or in the
consolidation of both, which in eth.
er case brings the rates far above
that which they should be. In ev-
cry instance except with telephone
companies consolidation has gen
orally resulted. With consolidation
comes monopoly. When the people
realize that if public services must
be monopoly, it must be govern
ment monopoly operated solely for
the public benefit and not for pri-
vate gain. Besides, when concerns
consolidate we have an unnecessary
waste, as with poles and wires with
lighting plants, which is an over
capitalization the people must pay
for in rates.
The reason given by the advocates
why municipal ownership should
be brought in is on account of it's
financial profits to the city. 1t will
either pay in cash savings to the
taxpayer or in cheaper and better
services. For illustration let US
take two companies in different cit
les of the same size, one being pri-
vate the other a municipal institu-
ton. Each have plants which con:
structed and equipped costs fifty
millions of dollars. The private
concern pays interest and dividends
on one million dollars, the other
40 being accounted for by the So
called watering of stocks. Here we
see that the people of the first city
paid interest on fifty millions of
dollars to private concern for per-
forming public function, whereas
the people of the second city saved
that much by performing that func-
ton themselves. For further illus
tration of this point take twccities
in our own state, this time dealing
with water plants-one city being
supplied with water by a private
concern, the other by it's own plant.
The rate in the second city where
the plant is run municipality, a
household hydrant is $500 per year;
in the first city for the same thing
the rate is $1,000 per year, or an
increase of one hundred per cent
over that of the second city. Hav-
ing sewerage connection the in
crease in rates of the private con-
Germ over the municipal concern is
seventy seven per cent. Now why
not have all city plants run munich
pally, and if there is any profit made
in the business let that much be
turned over to the city clerk to be
applied toward the reduction of tax
es throughout the municipality.
Municipal ownership is politi-
cal necessity and will remove the
main and most threatening source
of political corruption. The anti.
municipalities make their most pow
erful and convincing argument at
this point. Let the municipality ex-
tend it's activities and you enlarge
the opportunity for patronage. Add
to the number of public employees
and you swell the power of the par
ty-boss. Give the city more money
to spend in contracts and supplies
and you widen the doors for graft
ers. They argue that ownership of
public utilities means more corrup-
ton, more dishonesty in public life,
more power in all elements which
degrade a city and demoralize a
people. All these points would
hold true if we were to make con-
fession and take for granted that all
these evil elements are permanent.
That corruption will triumph, that
politicians will more and more make
public plunder their business, that