Lewiston evening teller. [volume] (Lewiston, Idaho) 1903-1911, 1907-07-18
THEY FAVOR
CITY OWNERSHIP
Committee Of Experts Re-
port on Conditions In
Great Britain

or experts sent abroad last year by
the National Civic Federation, is treat
ed at length in a series of reviews by
members of the committee, which were
made public today. These views Of the
experts reports. written by Milo r.
Maltbie. Walton Clark vice president
of the United Gas Improvement COM
pany of Philadelphia, and Charles L.
Edgar, president of the Edison Electric
and Illuminating company of Boston,
are divided in opinion as to the sue
cess of the undertaking as a whole.
Mr.. Maltbie is one of the members of
the newly created public service COM
mission for Greater New York. This
body has the widest powers and the
greatest responsibilities of any COM
mission to which the regulation Of cor
porations has been entrusted up to this
time, in the United States Mr.. Malt
bic spent six months in Great Britain
supervising the work OF the expert ac-
countants and engineers. He says that
IN Great Britain has passed the expert
mental stage. He declares that the
gas and electric light plants operated
by municipalities generally give a SUI
perior service at a relativel ylower
cost, as compared with the privately
finds to be due. principally to the
higher rate of interest and profit and
the greater amount Of liabilities of the
private companies.
BY far the most interesting part of
Mr.. Maltbie's conclusion, however, ID
that actual ownership and operation is
not necessary for the success OF the
municipal ownership idea. He says
that the power to operate. If necessary
| or desirable, in many instances, has
been as effective as actual operation
! that the mere fact that city has the
power to step in and operate an under
taking itself often makes the exercise
of this power unnecessary.
1T has been found in Great Britain
that no system of control or regula-
4 ton is complete without the power in
! the hands of the municipalities to pur-
chase and operate" says Mr.. Maltbie
eff one company may be succeeded
A only by another or only hedged about
\ by restrictions. there come times wher
action, not repression, is wanted, and
then no remedy is adequate unless Il
be the power of the city to step in anC
operate the undertaking itself. Blu
the mere fact that it has the power
often makes its exercise unnecessary
and what the Britisher desires is no
the universal adoption of some metho'
of producing results. but the results
themselves.
I'm the following analysis of the re
suits of public and private manage
ment it should be borne in mind tina
such a COMPARISON is not a compari
son of municipal with private opera
ton subject to no restraining force
but with private operation under sys
TENS of regulation which are elaine
to be the best which have yet been de
vised In Great Britain and with pr
vate management that has been chas
tened and bettered by the fear of pus
lie condemnation, by the restraint {
government regulation and the posi-
bility of municipalization. Thus IL
low price at which gas is supplied b
the Sheffield company is largely tn
result of the avowed determination
the men in control to head off munic
palization. If municipal operation ha
not been a possible alternative loon
ing above the horizon, it is likely thi
even now the consumers would be pa!
ing very much higher rates; and Il
present low rates. so far as they a
due to the desire to prevent municip
operation, should be counted as one
the indirect results"
The reasons that have led to Britt
municipalization, Mr.. Maltbie finds, a
many. First among them, although n
the most general nor the most impo
tant, is the desire to secure for I
public the financial profits of the u
dertakings. Second, there is the desi
to keep the city from being mulcted
private company and third, the ge
eral demand for better service at low
- rates. he mentions alSOs -FOUR
cause, which has played a promine
n part in the United States, and which
IL not unknown in Great Britain, name
opposition of privately operated pu
lie utilities companies to the welfs
y of the city. A fifth factor has been
Il belief that municipal operation wol
n permit the coordination of pub
services in a way that is not possi
n, where different services are operat
by private companies.
Messrs. Edgar and Clark favor so
form of regulation of private co
panies rather than the adoption of
municipal ownership idea. They I
~ clare 1t to be plainly proven that n
M nicipal ownership is productive
m many and serious ills. with little or
m compromising good. They hold that
solution Of present difficulties is to
found, not in municipal ownership g
operation of the public utilities, but