Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1912-03-19

mere, anu IN many other cities fOl
the light here for a municipal plan
is but part of the great progressive
movement throughout the country
does not represent in equipment but /
portion of the money obtained from
the sale Of its securities. AS is a
well known fact, private plants are
oVercapitalized several times their ac-
tual value. 1t is in.this way that the
promoters of such plants become
wealthy. The system has been in
| vogue for many years and the fight
for municipal ownership is simply the
protest of the public against it's con-
unuance. The public objects, and
properly, against paying interest OIL
Watered securities. What has been is
no reason that such conditions should
continue forever We maintain that
now is the time for the change in
| Americus.
Consider the matter locally. The
city proposes to issue bonds to the ex-
tent of $4,000 for an electric lighting
plant. The interest at. 1-2 per cent.
will be $2,250. The municipality can
issue bonds cheaper than a private
corporation, for the simple fact that
the municipalities life is endless and
its credit is better, as it is the credit
of every one of its citizens. The pri-
Vate corporation seeks to issue bonds
to the extent of 100000 in all, on
which interest at per cent will be
100000. We maintain that the net diff
ference of $17,750 is in favor of a mu-
niclpally owned plant, in the sense
that the private plant will seek to
earn and pay interest on the bond is
sue and to that extent such a bond
issue is lien on the consumers of the
city.
In this connection, too, it may we'll
be pointed out, the city can sell it's
4 IL per cent. bonds at par or better,
whereas the private corporation Of
fers a $100 bond and $50 of stock for
SS5, with an additional five per cent.
cost to it for floating the same.
Municipal ownership, it is claimed
by those opposing it, means political
management and an attendant train of
evils. AS matter of fact TIE very
purpose of our struggle here for a mu-
nicipally owned plant is to take the
electric lighting out of politics 1t is
the city's purpose if the bond issue car
ries, to provide a commission, under
state legislation, which will have abb
solute control of the plant, council
having no voice in its management.
and the plant being put sharply and
completely out of politics. 1t needs
but glance backward to realize that
this has not been the condition under
private ownership. For twenty years,
the lighting business, under private
ownership, has been an active agent
in local politics. 1t must ever remain
to perpetuate itself, to enable itself to
control council and secure a contract
and rates satisfactory to it. Wherever
you find a privately owned public util-
ity you find corporation mixed up in
local politics We desire this influ-
ence removed from Americus politics
for good
From an economic standpoint it ap-
pears to US that the argument is en-
tirely in favor of municipal ownership.
If the city issues $4,000 of bonds and
the interest charge is $2.250 year, it
must not be overlooked that for this
interest charge you, the taxpayers,
haxe a plant, owned by yourselves
for you are the city-the entire net
income of which goes into your city
| treasury, where, under private own
ership the interest on the vastly
greater issue of bonds comes from you
and the net income goes to the hold
ers of these securities and not into
your city treasury to assist in lower
ing taxes, or building up the city
| When you pay bill to municipality
owned plant you are paying the money
to yourself, in a sense, whereas, when
you pay it to a pricately owned plant
you are paying it to the investment
holders of that corporation. Under
| the one you derive all the benefits;
under the other the profits go else
where
Take a concrete example of how
these things work, and also as to how
a privately owned plant is factor in
politics. At Rome, Ga, nine years ago
a proposition was made to the city to
put In a plant, charging the city $10,-
600 year for ten years for all its
lights, and at the end of ten years to
present the plant to the city. The pri-
vately owned plant there fought the
project and defeated it in council
Since then Rome has been paying
$4,000 year for lighting purposes,
Lut it is no nearer owning plant than
it was nine years ago. The privately
Continued on Page FiVe)