The San Francisco call., 1907-02-10
The Dangers of Municipal Own
ership

ership
EN time when municipal ownership
is one of the slogans OF the Social
fists and matter OF thoughtful con-
sideration among more conservative
people. Robert P. Porter's new book,
'The Dangers OF Municipal Ownership"
nay be considered a valuable addition
70 the literature Of the subject. Fur
rher than that. it may well be classed
among the dependable works, it's au-
thor having been in a position TO ana
I'VE modern conditions OF trade, taxa
ron. corruption and labor His long
experience in the newspaper world has
U<ven him the ability to do this analy-
BIS efficiently and has enabled him to
Eive circumstances and events their
x-oper valuation. This keen. question
Snx, wen-bslanced mental attitude was
emphasized in Mr.. Porter's other books,
Commerce and Industry OF Japan" and
Industrial Cuba" His accuracy in pre-
sentinE facts has brought him recog-
snst5on OF . practical character. He had
direction OF the eleventh United States
Dea<zs, and President Mckinley sent
9zsakto Cuba and Porto Rico as the
epectsl commissioner to negotiate ar
auo Gomez for the disbandment of the
Cuban army. With this background
Sx experience, The Dangers OF Mu-
nicdpaI Ownership" has significant
value. Fortunately for the average
reader Mr.. Porter has been happy in
his presentation of the subject, stating
hard, dry facts in an entertaining fash
sen
While he is frankly against munich
Pal ownership Mr.. Porter almost always
Kfves the two sides OF this question.
s1s book is practically the first extern
sfve consideration OF the opposition.
As San Francisco came near having
ezfal Of municipal ownership in the
Geary street railroad, and as this ex-
perience may come at any time. this
book viii have far more than passing
interest here.
Mr. Porter gives an insight into his
attitude when he calls municipal own
ership municipal trading" after its
European significance. He places his
deductions under three general head
snxs. % trading as an undesirable ele-
nent in State and local government
and as a menace to progress and to So
ciety: (2) its financial unsoundness.
and CD that an examination Of specific
pup undertakings supports the gen.
era argument.
While Mr.. Porter makes extensive
tabulation Of municipal ownership con-
ditions as they obtained in Great Brit
ain and on the Continent, he empha-
sizes the futiiity Of taking English
successes as guides for American cities,
citing as a good example the failure in
Chicago to have municipal ownership
OF all street railways. The bringing
20 Chicago Of MIR. Dalrymple OF Scot
land, already committed to municipal
ownership, is cited as proof Of the con-
tsntion. Mr. Dalrymple, after trying
10 put his methods into operation, went
home 20 Glasgow, saying that II was
impossible to do IN Chicago what he
had accomplished In Glasgow. Speak
ing Of this country Mr.. Porter says:
while the question Of municipal
ownership is undoubtedly ripening in
Ste public mind IN the United States, a
; true knowledge and understanding OF
; IT'S merits are carefully concealed from
xte eleotera6e"
The blame will surely not rest with
Mr.. Porter for this ignorance, as he
Specific consideration is given to the
defeat OF william R. Hearst for Mayor
ef New York, but Porter is fair
snough to say that while he was the
municipal ownership candidate his de-
feat must be regarded as personal and
not q repudiation OF what he stood for.
The entire book bristles with as
rltny cases "fn point as a modern law
yer's brief Many of these show that
the interest paid by municipalities for
the purchase OF utilities is so great
that administration is Immediately
erippled. He says, after showing that
an application Of municipal ownership
principles in the United States would
mean an Increased Indebtedness Of
si.32S. 500. .7s7:
what body OF public men without
cay knowledge Of the economic princi-
ples upon which States and cities are
firmly founded can view such an Access
sion Of civic liabilities and response
bilities without alarm. and would leave
a stone unturned to prevent the over
whelming accumulation Of municipal
interests which It indicates? The pres
ent activity OF the ownership party in
the United States warrants the fear
that the movement may yet extend to
these proportions; but surely no sane
public body would suffer itself for long
10 be dragged by the heels Of the SO
cisli5ic dreamers and opportunists IL
by SO doing it becomes party TO the
bringing OF financial chaos and ruin
upon the community. Yet this is what
Mr.. Bryan in his speech in Madison
Square Garden proposed to do. and