New-York tribune., 1907-07-19
MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP
FOR AND AGAINST 1T.
National CiUic Erperts Report
MaltHe, of u. S., FaU0rs Plan.

nation of It are contained in a report given out
yesterday by the committee of experts sent by
the National Civic Federation to study the pub
lie service conditions IN Great Britain. This Is
the third paper this question issued by the
federation. and. like the others. it is divided
into two parts. one from members opposed TO
municipal ownership and the other from men,
bers in favor OF II.
The champion of municipal ownership in the
present review is Milo r. Maltbie member OF
the newly created Public Service Commission
for greater New York. The gist of Mr.. Maltbie's
summary is that where municipal ownership is
not actually in existence the knowledge that
the city may at any time take over public
service enterprise will usually suffice 10 keep the
private owners UP TO the mark of efficiency and
low prices The reviewers who express their be-
lief that municipal ownership IS foreign TO
American ways and should not be tried arc
Walton Clark. vice-president Of the United Gas
Improvement Company of Philadelphia, and
Charles L. Edgar. president OF the Edison Elec-
trio and Illuminating Company, OF Boston.
They favor. however. some form OF regulating
private companies
The report deals with the gas and electric
plants OF many cities OF the United Kingdom.
The gas plants examined were those conducted
by the municipalities OF birmingham. Glasgow.
Manchester and Leicester, by private companies
at Sheffield and Newcastle, and those OF the
GateShead Company ana the SOOth metropolitan
Company, OF London. The municipal electric
lighting plants inspected were at Manchester.
Liverpool, Glasgow and the Borough Of st.
Pancras. London. The private companies Wis
ited the Newcastle Supply Company. the
Newcastle District Company and four London
cOmpanies-the City OF London, Westminster,
ST James and Central.
Mr. Maltbie has almost unreserved praise for
the municipal gas plants. He said he found
them conducted with greater efficiency than
those OF the private companies. and that be-
cause Shefield's private plant furnishes gas
cheaper than do the municipalities there can be
no fair comparison. since the Sheffield concern
can buy coal cheaper than any other and has a
market at its very doors for all the coke II can
produce. He points out that the Sheffield COM
pany has been able for long time 70 sell its
by-products for moro than the cost OF coal, oil
and other supplies. making in this way alone a
profit OF 213 pence for every thousand feet OF
gas produced
In order 10 reach fair ground OF comparison.
Mr. Maltbie says. 1t should be assumed that the
sale OF tho residuals pays the cost OF gasmakn6
in every plant. To determine what the price OF
gas would have been under equal conditions he
holds that tho net cost OF the coal should be
subtracted from tho average price at which gas
was sold that year.
on the electric lighting plants the two reports
are equally at cross purposes Mr.. Maltbie ad-
| mts that company station he saw is better
than any maintained by municipality but. to
/
plants were more antiquated than any Of those
| owned by the cities. He found. also. that there
! were fewer complaints against the service OF
municipal electric lighting plants. Messrs. Clark
! and Edgar write that they have come to the
| conclusion that municipalities are by no means
as we'll fitted TO conduct such plants pri-
! vate companies managed by men OF avera so
/ honesty They add:
1T appears that so far the prices charged are
/ concerned the system OF municipal ownership and
1 operation Of electric undertakings IN England has
/ given Its advocates reason for feeling ashamed
elatcd. but that so far as extending the benefits
! OF electric light and power and far progress
siveness in developing the industry so as TO give
tho best possible service are concerned 1t has
shown itself be entirely outclasSed by the sys-
/ tenn Of private operation"
! From such different views II Is inevitable that
tho general conclusions drawn should be opposite
the poles. Mr.. Maltbie declares that efforts
| to frighten the British ratepayer by pointing
| out the increase OF the city debt of London
| since the Inauguration of extensive municipal
! enterprises have failed and that the voters
| realize the amount of good they derive from free
| baths. workingmens dwellings,. wharves. ceme-
teries and hospitals. Gas. electric and similar
| businesses operated by city tighten tho tax
| burden, he writes, besides giving better and
cheaper service. Mr.. Maltbie's position az a
member OF the Public Service Commission lends
special Significance to his stand. He says:
Certain deductions should also be made to
equalize charges for maintenance. rates and
| Making these deductions. IL Is found that the
| average price which gas could have been
| sold by the municipal plants would have been
l6S4d thousand feet, and the private companies
! 213ld provided that residuals had just paid
for gas materials. that the same amount C.5Od a
thousand) had been spent by each plant for main
tenance. depreciation ana taxes. that nothing had
been paid to relieve taxation. and that all plants
| were equality In these regards. In operat.
ing expenses there is not much difference between
the municipal and private plants. the differences
| in expenses being confined interest dividends
| and credit balance, and in these items the mu.
inequalities superior In that their charges there
| for average only 3.3ld. thousand, while the pr
vate companies expenditures for the same pur
pose average 7b2d or two and one-third times a.
much. This condition is due TO the higher rate al
interest and profit and the greater amount OF lIa,
bilities Of the private plants.
Looking at the matter from the same point o.
view of price Messrs. Edgar and Clark arriv,
at entirely different conclusion. They rnC
that the small cities of Sheffield and Newcastl,
get gas cheaper from their private companie.
than do the large cities OF Birmingham GIas
gov and Manchester from the municipal plants
They say
In the year covered by this investigation IL ir
the city of Birmingham. the Newcastle price of ga
mad prevailed the consumers would have beer
600 better off, II the Sheffield price had pre
vailed the Birmingham gas consumers would hav
saved f35O.90O The amount paid by the Birming CHA
gas undertaking into the common good was f69 SIS
So II seems that this city is playing a losing gam
with its municipal plant; II is mulcting its la
consumers from f250.Oo0 to f350O00 n year in orle
that II may help out the municipal treasury wit
q paltry 10000. In the OF Manchester IL tn
Newcastle price had prevailed the gas consumer
would have saved EAT 500: at Shefieid's price the
would have saved ELL 800. The amount contrihuta