The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-07-21

had been fully tried. Great Britain had
the most carefully adjusted system Of
regulation that could be devised. Never
theless regulation failed: the conflict OF I'M
forests proved irrepressible. There were
two masters--the stockholders Of the com
pany and the pee 2le Of the community;
the interests Of the one were constantly
at war with those Of the other. Parliament,
indeed, surrounded the franchises with
many restrictions, but It rarely imposed
adequate penalties for their violation.
Such a shortcoming vas largely unavoid-
able, for the class In control Of Parliament
was largely Interested In franchise mo-
uopolies. Such was the experience Of
Great Britain. The basis Of all street rail-
way legislation and construction in Great
Britain Ia ths tramway act OF 1870. That
statute provided that the cities could lay
ths tracks but could not at first operate
the roads. The operation OF them was to
be turned over TO a private company. The
lease was limited TO twenty-one years.
b act also provided that the city could
take over the property at the expiration
OF the grant, by paying for its structural
value. tt first city to take advantage
of the tramway law OF 1870 was Glasgow.
A horse system was installed by a private
company after the city had laid the tracks.
The grant to the company expired in 1894.
The company desired a renewal OF the lease
and negotiations TO that end were pending
for q number Of years, but as terms could
not be agreed upon the Town Council in
1894 decided to acquire the lines. The COM
any refused to sell It's equipment and the
Council had TO purchase horses and cars
elsewhere. h success Of the city on the
basis of public convenience was imme-
diate. II Beduced fares 80 per cent. and
increased the length of the hauls. The
experience Of Glasgow stimulated other
large towns to take over some or most
Of their respective lines. In the course Of
ten years 10, public tramways had been
opened, If which i0i are reported a. at
the present time both owned and operated
by the towns, including all the leading cities
Of the United Kingdom. with the exception
of Edinburgh. Dublin, Cork. Bristol, Carlisle
and Coventry.
As Parliament did not permit competi-
ton the town councils could only enter
the trsmway pushes by buying u the
existing companies. Thus many cities
found themselves handicapped through
feeling constrained not only to pay for
the tracks but also to make good the initial
cost Of the horse OF electric equipment.
In many cases. too, the council had to pay
for untranspired franchises. Liverpool. for
example, paid a company $4,000 to acquire
it's franchise and another million for it,
worthless horse equipment. The city Of
Manchester paid 81, zoo, 900 for horse cars
and barns which we're Of little use, while
other towns we're similarly burdened at
the outset of their experiments. The
companies. however, we're not con . 1t
with such bargains. but insisted upon being
paid the capitalized value Of their earnings 9,
even when the grants had expired. In
acase which went from London to the courts
the companies demanded s. ,e99, 900, but
the courts decided that they were only
entitled to compensation for the physical
value OF the plant, and reduced the sum
total to s43p, 400.
A table prepared by Mr.. Howe compares
the outcome Of 10i undertakings owned
and actually worked by the local authorities
and ii3 owned and operated by private
companies, the data for the former being
the Board OF Trade returns for the year
ended March, 1905, and the data for the
latter the returns OF the same board relating
to the year which closed December 1, 1908.
From this table it appears that the gross
receipts Of the public plants we're $40, 203 900
more than the receipts of the private COM
panies. The operating expenses of the
former we're but "a .Os per cent Of the gross
receipts, as against an operating expense
of 8a.5S per cent. on the part Of the latter.
In tie matter OF net earnings the showing
was no less favorable. The town councils
earned 7.97 per cent. on their capital invest
men., IA against ass per cent. earned by
the private companies. This in the face
of the fact that the councils pay much
better wages and allow shorter hours Of
labor to their employees. while the rates Of
fares are generally lower The difference
in net earnings ia to be accounted for by
the fact that the council tramways carried
nearly twice as many passengers as did
those OF the private companies, though
the former had only about IL per cent.
greater ~trackage.
Later facts bearing on the subject OF the
municipal ownership Of tramways in the
United Kingdom are quoted by the author
In a ~footnote from a bulletin issued in jan
uary, 1903, by the Bureau Of Labor at WASH
ington. According to a summary OF the
Board OF Trade returns. the net revenue
Of the public tramways in the year l9O5-O6,
over and above operating expenses,
had amounted to nearly $12, 600, 900, and
was equivalent to 8 per cent. on the capital
account. although the average fare a
passenger was only 2.l cents. During the
same period the private tramways carried
about half as many passengers and earned
but ~ per cent on their capital. though
the average fare a passenger was %
cents. During the yea the public tram
ways had relieved the rates to the extent
OF 81. 200. 900. in addition to the debt repay
ment charges. the reserve funds and the
provisions for depreciation. Only four pub
lie undertakings reported any loss during
the twelvemonth. and all of these were in
small towns. the average deficit being but
8 $500.
Il is to be noted that in the United King
dom the town councils have full control of
the rates Of fare. the distribution OF earn
ings n the details of administration,
but Parliament prescribes many of the
conditions. such as the speed at which oars
may run, the time OF debt repayment and
the extension Of trsckage into adjacent