The Washington herald., 1913-09-04
OPINIONS DIFFER
ON CROSSER BILL
Commissioners Decline to Dis
cuss Attitude on Railway
Ownership.
R. P. ANDREWS OPPOSED
Sees No Advantage in City Buying
Utilities-Roy c. ClaHin
Favors Plan.
R. P. ANDREWS OPPOSED

Views OF washington business men ana
civic workers are at sharp variance as
to the bill introduced by Representative
Crosser of Ohio, which provides for mu-
nicipai ownership ofastreet railways. It
was urged yesterday both that the bill
would lead to better service and that
IL would be followed by inefficient man
sgement.
The Commissioners would not say what
their report to Congress regarding the
bill would be- II is not known whether
they will favor the measure or will en-
tertain the view of their predecessors.
who advocated consolidation of the street
railway companies. Commissioner Sid
dons said:
II am not prepared to discuss the ex-
pediency and policy of city ownership of
public utilities, as set forth In the bill
introduced by Representative Crosser, be-
cause l have not looked very far into
the bill. Anyway, you know the Public
Utilities Commission was created to reg
ulate street railroads.
In a report TO the Senate by the last
Board OF Commissioners it was said in
part:
IF our two principal street railway
companies could agree upon the relative
value OF their lines il would seem that
shares in a new company. without par
value, could be distributed equitably
among the stockholders OF the two sys-
TENS, and that thus might be avoided all
questions of overcapitalization or under
capitalization between the companies
and the public. OF course, an act of
Congress would be required to permit
consolidation on this or any other basis"
General Principle Discussed.
Few of the washingtonians who ex-
pressed opinions yesterday would COM
ment directly on the bill of Mr.. Crosser.
Ii was said in most instances that there
had not been time for sufficient study.
The general principle OF municipal
ownership was involved in most Of the
statements.
ID. A. Edwards, president Of the Fed
Grafton of Citizens Associations, was one
of those who had not had time to care
fully study the bill He said.
"As to municipal ownership generally,
I believe that as We have a public ser
vice commission to regulate the public
utilities of the District We can obtain
the benefits OF public ownership without
undergoing tho expense of buying public
utilities corporations"
1t was the opinion OF r. p. Andrews,
president of the Retail Merchants As
sociation, that better service could be
obtained by leaving the companies un-
der their present ownership. Mr.. An
drews said:
1t would be disadvantage 10 any
city TO purchase its public utilities
From a business point OF view, ! can
not see any decided advantage in NUM-
cipaI ownership and there are a host
Of disadvantageeus features.
Ny opinion mas been formed by re-
ports from friends in cities where utili-
ties companies are owned by the num-
cipality. / have been told in all cases
that municipal ownership is failure
as regards either economy, efficiency, or
service.
In the first place, the cost Of man
agement would be increased. II Is not
possible, / think. fer a city to obtain re-
suits as good as those to be had by per-
sons who have their fortunes invested
in such corporations. In a company pri-
vately owned and superintended by city
commissions there is the interest of the
owner in making his Investment prosper
Gus as well as popular and the hand OF
the city to see that profits are not un-
fair or the service poor.
IAN employe of a city-controiled cor
poTation knows that his salary will be
paid to him no matter what happens.
1t Is only reasonable to believe that he
has not behind him the impetus toward
his best efforts as an employe who knows
that because his employers lose real
money if he is inefficient they will not
hesitate to discharge him.
The only advantage to be derived, in
my opinion. is that II owned by the pub
lie there would not be so many COM
plants against public utilities corpora
tions. Naturally, a citizen who was a
leader in a movement for municipal own
ership could not very well object be-
cause he was delayed in reaching his
suburban home directly as the result OF
the consummation OF his efforts"
Sees Advantages in Plan.