The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-10-26
Extended Hearing Be
fore Subcommittee
on Streets.
MARTIN AUTHOR
OF RESOL UJTIONS
Attorney for Company Draws
Paper Adopted by Business
Men-Henry Anderson Ar
gues for Protection OF In
vested Capital From IN
fair Competition.

~ IA ~ IA
fair Competition.
Extended argument was heard last
night before a subcommittee OF the
Council Committee on Streets on the
proposition to grant franchise to the
Richmond Power Corporation to oper-
ate system of poles, wires and con-
duits for the purpose OF supplying
electric lighting and power current.
ne company proposes to erect its
plant at the mouth OF the Midlothian
Coal Mines. In Chesterfield county, and
to bring the power here for manu-
featuring and lighting purposes
Some phases of the proposed fran
chise were opposed by the represent
Power Company as unfair to invested
capital already in the field, and a
salient amendment to the franchise
designed to protect the streets OF the
city was proposed by City Engineer
Boiling.
Resolutions OF Endorsement were
presented from the South Richmond
and Chesterfield Business Mems AS
ISOLATION and from the board OF dt-
rectors OF the Chamber of Commerce,
but their effect was to some extent
dissipated when 1t. was brought out
that the South Richmond paper was
drafted by Major Miles N. Martin, gen
eral counsel for the company seeking
the franchise. and that he had drafted
paper for the Chamber OF Commerce.
which had been modified by Acting
president Darlington Until II meant lit
tie more than general Endorsement
OF the principle OF securing cheap cleo
tric power for manufacturing purposes,
with due regard to existing conditions
and franchises.
Many Attorneys Present.
Members OF the street Committee
present were Aldermen Adams, Powers
and Kain. and Councilmen Davis and
Sullivan. Major Martin appeared for
the applicant. with Secretary Levin
JoSnes, Clyde W. saunders and others,
President william Sorthrop. vice-Pres-
sident sitterding. General Counsel
q enry Anderson. General Attorney
a. 3. sGutgon, Local Attorney Thomas
& II. Bryan. and a number OF other rep
resentatives OF the Virginia Railway
( ana Power Company were present.
Mr. Anderson was the first speaker,
continuing the argument he had begun
Mt the former sitting OF the committee
After explaining the difference be-
tween private corporations and enter
prises. such as stores, which are sub
1ect to no general regulation in prices
or conditions OF business, and which
may go out of business or sell at will,
and public service Corporations which
are subject to public control, and
which cannot go out of business II
competition renders them unprofita BILE,
or could not sell a surplus plant In
View of strong competition, Mr.. Ander-.
son argued that while the government
= should control all public service cor
porations. 1t should insure u them as
ar as possible condition OF profit.
Competition Leads to Loss.
He argued boldly that competition
+ IN public service corporations, unlike
competition in private enterprises.
leads only to deterioration and loss
TO the community. doubling the invest
ment OF capital, leading to two sets OF
olsginss in the streets, charging to the
community theaincreased rate on the
Increased capital necessarily invested,
or ,'s5 else allowing the service to the pub-S
lie to deteriorate.
He asserted that wierever telephone
or light or street railway companies
mad consolidated, one company had
furnished better service thanStwo be-
lore, but that the history Of such con-.
Rsolidation, as In the case of the street
hallway. companies here, had been to
saddle the consolidated company with
swo plants, one OF which is now lying
Idle, with consequent over-capitaliza-
y lion, on which the community pays In
terest.
'.Competition,' asserted Mr.. Andcr-
son. in public service corporations Is
not desirable or for the public benefit.
such utilities are natural monopolies
and should be so rded auntil It can.
= be shown that the existing company Is
4 not covering the field. defy any one
5 to show that with regard to the exist
Ing company You don't want to grant
Y franchise that isn't going to be exer-
& clsed. II competing company comes
into the field 1t. should give assurance
&that41t will continue as 8an6independent
company for some time II tell you
frankly that such asfranchise, sooner
Or ater, means a. loss Aof$the capital in-.
vested. lean only mean an eventual
olidatlon. Either they will swal-i
+ low us orswe will swallow them. Then
u there will be two plants, two systen,s
OF poles and wires, one of which will
be q needless charge against the capi-
tai Of the company. on which the com
mllnity in the long run will pay the
interest. 3s
Best Service mt Lowest Rates. IL.
he city, I ia ke 1t, wants the be st
b
able rates Such a franchise can only;
mean a bitter struggle, possibly Y with
low ates, until one Or the others4is
!, I, forced out. and hen the rates will go
4 igher than ever, to pay a return on
the capital represented In two plants
instead OF one. Is n wise to embarrass
the existing company. which has its
lines in every sc ction Of Richmond \
reaching sc out into territory much Of
\ Which Which does not pa y a turn on the
investment, by bringing IN a destruc-S
tive competition Which will serve only
the cream OF our territorya?S Our lines
into INT outlying and esidential sections.
are are many Of them Improbable We are
giving serYice8in some sections al s q !,
actual loss Are you going to admit
q competitor e. to the cream OF our nllll-
Ing and manufacturing territory,Swh here
are zo1r largest cysto toners, without,
Continued on Third Page