The San Francisco call., 1910-01-13


ship of public utilities as a funda-
mental principle of social progress.
In every lator organization, from
the American federation of labor
lown to the smallest local union.
his principle has been affirmed and
reafirmed for many years. prac-
.ically without a dissenting voice.
) Upon no other question of public
policy is there so general an agree
ment
} No matter how radically the mem
bers of organized labor may dis
agree upon certain questions, all
; are absolutely unanimous upon the
question of municipal ownership of
public utilities. Indeed, that prop
osition has long ceased to be open
to question and has become an
, accepted fact in the propag ganda of
the labor movement. Not even the
axiom that The laborer is worthy
of his hire" is less questionable
among the members of the labor
movement than the axiom that all
public utilities should be owned and
operated by the people. In every
locality the labor movement has al
} ways been foremost in advocacy of
nlnicipal ownership as a prime ne
. cessity to the preservation of the
public rights The apparent atti-
tude of the labor movement of San
, Francisco in the matter of the
; Spring Valley purchase is the only
instance within the writer's knowl-
edge in which the labor movement
here or elsewhere has opposed any
measure toward the accomplishment
of municipal ownership.
The general attitude of the labor
movement in the matter of munich
pal ownership is based upon the
acknov' lodged characteristic of the
public utility under private control.
as a natural monopoly controlling a
necessary element of social exist
ence, anu therefore possessing the
power to tax the people. This
power has led in the nature of
things to abuse and imposition on
; the public in the form of high rates.
poor service, and that greatest of
all social Affections, the corruption
. of the public servants.
Generally speaking, g community
, that is dependent upon a public
service corporation for a necessity
to its growth. comfort or con-
venience is DEP endent upon the
same source for its very existence.
This rule bears more directly upon
= community in proportion as the
public utility thus controlled is
necessary to social convenience. not
to say individual human life.
The most important of all public
) utilities, or rather necessities, is
that of water. In fact, so great
is the Importance of this matter
hat it has long since been removed
from the field of discussion. What
ever difference of opinion may exist
among men generally on the sub
ject OF municipal ownership of pub
ic utilities the matter of water sup
ply is generally, indeed universally,
regarded as one coming distinctly
and necessarily within the province
of puniic control. Thus we find
} that Almost evers city in the United
States and throughout the world
owns It's water supply. In this
respect San Francisco stands almost
alone. With one or two possible
exceptions among cities of its own
; size, San Francisco is the only city
in the civilized world that is today
! dependent upon a private corpora
tion for the supply Of the first neces-
sity to human life, next to air itself.
For the first time in the history
of San Francisco the water ques-
tion is now before the people in
such form as to insure municipal
ownership by the mere act of vot-
. ing to that end. Knowing the posi-
tion assumed by the labor move
ment upon the general subject of
municipal ownership, it is natural to
, expect that that movement will lead
in support of the proposal to Sc
cure municipal ownership of the
water supply. The contrary, how
ever, appears on the face of things
to be the case. Now that every
other element of the community is
united in favor of a great public
Undertaking we find that undertak-
) ing jeopardized by opposition from
that quarter in which, more than in
, any other, the most powerful sup
) port is to be expected.
Should the proposal to authorize
, the issuance of bonds for the pur-
chase of the Spring Valley water
company's property be defeated to-
morrow that misfortune will be due
} largely to the Indifference and hos
tility of organized labor in San
Francisco. Such a result would be
an especial misfortune to the labor
movement, involving a serious re-
Election upon its good faith in the
} matter of municipal ownership, to
say nothing of the responsibility
that would rest upon it for the in
convenience and suffering inflicted
upon the whole city by the indef-
mite perpetuation of existing condi-
tions 1t is the boast (and justi-
fably sol of the labor movement
} that its power and influence are al
ways directed to the public good.
There is both irony and pathos in
the fact that in the present instance
the poweF of the labor movement is
being directed to the injury of the
public and against a long cherfched
hone Of freedona from fhralldor m