The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1908-02-13
Private VS. Public Ownership.

evening. After the opening service
and discharge of regular business the
chairman, Mr.. II. A. Dinsmore, an
nounced the debate of the evening:
"Resolved, that Skowhegan should
own its Electric Light and Water
plants.o Affirmative, DR.. Leitch and
Roland Patteni negative, G. j. Abbey
and Louis Anderson, the latter sub
stituting for Samuel Gould.
DR.. Leitch introduced the subject
by referring to the fundamental prin
ciples upon which SO ciety in it's or
ganic unity was based stating that
fundamental rights were inalienable,
such as mans right to the posses
sion of himself, his thoughts and pro-
ducts of industry, and also that So
ciety as an organic whole al inalien
able rights TO the air, sunshine, ocean,
lakes, rivers, and land, all things that
are not products of industry belonged
to men, not man, these were rights
that were absolute and inalienable.
Legal rights were fictitious and arti
fetal such as corporate rights, rights
prescribed and conferred by law.
The forces of nature belonged to all.
The right to exploit the elements and
their normal use and purpose were
conferred by the state to the corpora
ton, such rights as use of highways
for steam-car, electric car, water
rights, electric and telephone rights
etc. Public utilities were public bene
fits, that which the town creates the
town should own on lines of funda-
mental rights. The town owns high
ways, schools, police and fire protec
ton, why not electric and water plants.
The proposition is one of cost of dis
tribution. Can the cost of distribu-
ton be more equtably handled for
the many by the town, or by cor
poration for the few? The PROPOSE
ton is business one. Would it pay
our town to distribute these funda
mental rights to all or give this fran
chise to the few? Can we get men
sufficiently Interested in civic affairs
and public spirited enough to contri-
butte brains and honesty to give what
corporations demand of their Super
/ intendents. Other cities and town
have done thiswhy not Skowhegan?
Mr.. Abbey, taking the negative side
of the question, said: This is an i'm
portant question and merits an earn
est consideration. If public owner
ship could tie made public ownership
and not political ownership, sui
ject to graft, dishonesty and extrava-
gance it might accomplish good re-
suits. 1t is well known fact that
public ownership on this continent
has been manipulated by politicians
for what they could get out of it.
The misnanagement has been SO
gross the same voters have reyoted to
! lease, sell, shut down or abandon. 1t
is not for me, said Mr.. Abbey, to say
that the average American Is not sui
ficiently trustworthy to manage pub
lie affairs but there are strong indica
tions that such is the fact. Public
owne rship has other drawbacks. The
superintendent is elected for probab
~ a year and is under the control of
other municipal officers and conse-
quently limited i'll his sphere of use
fulness and if he advocates too much
will be turned down at next election.
Corporate management demands ex-
perience and judicious superinten-
dence and when this is given with
good results life time position is as
sured and benefits conferred all
around. Ten communities in the
United States were cited together
with others which showed gross in
efficiency somewhere which made it
necessary for the municipality to dis
pose of their plants. The plants at
the following place were sold to cor
porations owing to mis- management
and the towns and cities voted to buy
their water and electricity from cor
porations. Lakewood, o.; English,
Ind; South Pittsburg, Tenn; Lowell,
Ind; Hedrick, la. Many other cities
and towns have voted against issuing
bonds to build plants preferring cor
porate ownership.
Mr.. X. T. Patten referred particu-
larly to the fact that municipal own
ership of public utilities was the nor
NAL and natural right of the people
and that if these business enterprises
could be conducted by corporations
for the benefit of the few they could
be similarly conducted by the NUM-
cipality. The speaker said munich
palities were not the only sinners in
mismanagement. Recent investiga
tions shows us quite plainly that cor
porate Encouragement is just as in
iquitous and appalling as public
graft. We are TO consider in all these
questions that while we endeavor to
reach the ideal we may make mis-
takes and that undoubtedly under the
spirit and law of progress, that domi
mates everything, that mankind will
eventually enter more fully into and
enjoy more equitable social order.
With the introduction of the Initia-
tive and Referendum, these evils will
largely be eliminated in our munich
pal and state life and less play be
given to the powers that would de-
stroy civil municipal rights by giving
the people their own.
Mr.. Lewis Anderson said that his
sympathies were decidedly for corpo-
system OF government ~ less iniquity
was apparent and fewer opportuni
ties were given to corruption to de-
stroy and pillage the public. The
evils of corruption were so vicious
that it was manifest on all hands.
Men were not sufficiently patriotic
and high minded to seek the welfare
of the municipality and state outside
of their own interests. The basis of
this evil lay in the lack of civic con-
science, it was SO bad that people
could not trust each other. We must
first begin by teaching the people to
trust each other and that can only be
done by the development of Christian
character and by education of the
masses. An uneducated Democracy
was worse than an absolute monarchy.
There is no demagogue worse than
the mobocracy where people go in
mass and vote and demand public
hi IA IT,, ri hot