The St. Lucie County tribune. (Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Fla.) 1905-1920, 1907-03-01
MUNICIPAL
4 OWNERSHIP
Ably Defended by E. 7. R. Eripp,
of the Socialist Local
PRESENTS COLD FACTS
Declares that Increasing Mag nilude Of En-
terprises and Decreasing Efficiency
a Significant Tendency

Resuming the municipal ownership
question one may say, there will not be
any need for it in this section for very
many wears to come and therefore
/. needless to discuss it now; but that is
altogether wrong view of the subject
/. for il as a result of the agitation of the
railroad question now being stirred
throughout the Union there should be
effcted reduction of rates as is being
sought, farms would 80 multiply in ST.
Luce county as to build up the county
seat into large up-todate town, which
latter phaze would depend largely on
the public spirit of its citizens taking
under its own control the public utilities
instead of surrendering them to private
greed for the "encentive of large pro-
fits.'
The plan of prejudicing the public
against municipal ownership has gen.
orally been by wholesale assertions Of
failures with the significant absence
Of specific examples). In one instance
In recent literature an argument was
made against the possibility of success
In, municipality owned engineering UNI
dertakings. But little later the re-
port of the splendid success of Holyoke
apparently laid that argument to rest.
Holyoke seems to have been one of
few cities, if not indeed the only one,
IN this country operating its plants long
enough to prove either success or fail
ure, for municipal undertakings have
their hardest struggles the first few
years, as is clearly demons trated in the
old country where public ownership has
been long standing. Writers on the
subject should be acquainted with this
fact and not seize upon instances OF
struggling cities as failures, especially
4 In America where private interests
3 make every use of political bosses and
graft to break up the municipal owner
ship. Honest writer's will not Judge
{ hastily, yet peradventure while await
I! Ing their outcome may rely too i'm
plicitly on reports of many failures
coming across the ocean, not knowing
that agents were hired for that express
purpose by the Private interests OF
America. In this way we may charita-
bly, Recount for the assertions of Prof.
Eeesenden.
Because of the foregoing truths the
United States Government through its
Bureau of Labor, as late as 1906, in
vestigated municipal ownership in The
United Kingdom of Great Britain A
report of which is published in Bulletin
mo. 81, 1906 Under the captain,
'"'Criticisms of Municipal Ownership.
The strongest expression of the OPPOSE
tion TO municipal ownership is found in
= series of seventeen articles published
II the London Times in the latter part
ot 1902. he general conclusions OF the
Times articles are as follows:
!. That the growth of huge local
!. oebtl which threatens to attain the
.QArna proportions as the national debt,
lnDtitutes a source Of possible danger
to the finances of the country.
Y & That partly on account of these
und1ttakings, and partly on account OF
thSxhpid advances Of local expenditure
III Along the line, the taxes are advance
Ing q rate that constitutes consid-
erAble burden on the community.
s. That this burden is at present
,eopecialy felt by the manufacturers,
dndlptrial companies, traders, and pro-
:pstty owners, but must eventually fall
ION tie working classes in the shape OF
klghor rents, lower wages, and an in
'Dfoosed cost of commodities.
That many boroughs, cities, and
}Qytoller communities, are threatened
Ia. financial trouble at no distant date
tj0ason of the excessive expenditure
|eir local authorities.
That the extent to which the prin-
6of municipal ownership has been
He'd by local authorities is, whether
kionally or not, in strict accord
Ne aspirations of avowed Socialists
lr desire to secure the creation OF
bctive state and the transfer 10