Rocky Ford enterprise., 1907-04-26

er is there anything in the Chicago
case to justify the literary bureaus OF
the subsidized interests in publishing
misleading information about the
workings of municipal ownership IN
other and smaller cities, where pub
lie management can be kept more
readily in hand than in greater ones.
In this connection the mayor of
Lincoln, Ncb., has recently been call
ed upon to give the lie to some OF
this literature. published in reference
to bis city. In refutation. the mayor
of Lincoln explains that Lincoln
owns and operates the water works
and the street lighting SYSTEM, and
that the water system furnishes wat
er at half what it is furnished for IN
any other Western city. dependent
upon wells as Lincoln is. Il es:i-
mate" says Mayor Brown. that
Lincoln, on its present basis, will
make approximately 500. 500 this year
out of its municipal ownership of the
water works; figure that under pri-
vate ownership we would lose S28.5oo
hydrant rentals, $4,000 for water for
flushing sewers and supplying public
buildings, $4,000 profits and S2s,ooo
in the difference in water rentals"
As to the lighting plant of Lincoln.
it has been running but little over a
year, and its operation has therefore
been experimental to a certain de-
gree. But it is superior to the old
system. For many years the city
paid n private company per month
for arc lamps for street lighting.
prices ranging from $40 down to
S7.4s for all night lights and S5.45
Tor midnight lights, moonlight schcd-
ule, operating at that time iSo lamps.
Then the city adopted gas lights I'M
til 1905, when its municipal plant was
installed at cost OF SS6.6oo.So. Its
lights are all-night lights every night.
and Of candle power admittedly
much superior to those furnished un-
der private ownership, and the aver
age cost is $40 per light per month.
BY the way, whenever VIC United
Statcrs talk about being safe and sane
in our business activities we instinct-
lively turn for comparison to the con-
scrvativc. the even supposedly slow
communities like Canada and Great
Britain. II we turn in those .direc-
tons for light on the municipal own.
crship problem we shall certainly find
the trend of public opinion and prae-
teal experience strongly in its ia
vor. I, is only a few months since
the legislature of Manitoba munich
paiizcd" the telephone system OF that
entire province. Or perhaps more
strictly speaking "provincialixcd" il:
for n considerable difference of opin-
ion arose on the question OF city Or
provincial control of the lines. But
Il went through as provincial"
management scheme and the farm
crs as well as the city folk enjoy the
advantages.
And again. those readers Of eco
nomic literature specially prepared
to tell of failure OF municipal owner
ship in Great Britain will be interest,"
cd to know that the London Daily
Tclcgraph-hostilc to the idea-has
been collecting data on the profit and
loss Of municipal management and Is
compelled to report contrary to its
predictions. Its special invcstiga-l
tors in rs British municipalities have
been heard from. OF 20 municipal
gas undertakings. all arc found to be
working either without loss or at al
clear profit. OF u municipal water
undertakings. q arc in tho profitable
class. OF Sc electric undertakings.
10 arc in that class. OF rs street car
undertakings there arc - in the same
class. This would look az II anyl
community that is morally minded
enough TO elect an honest city admin
is;ra;ion can save itself money by
municipal ownership.