The Washington times., 1914-06-03
Mr.. SYME'S TESTIMONY.

The position taken by Corporation
Counsel Syme in his statement be-
fore the House committee yesterday
as to the municipal ownership of
public utilities is impregnable. 1t
is sustained by the law, justified by
human experience, and founded in
public justice and common sense. He
said the street railways were essen
tial functions of municipal govern
ment, monopolistic in their nature,
and permitted to be operated by cor
porations as agencies of government
until it was expedient and safe for
the government to assume direct
control; that the corporations were
voluntary agents, who enjoyed this
monopoly by a grant of special
privilege, which they voluntarily ac-
cepted with the full knowledge and
agreement that it might be with
drawn by the government, when it
deemed advisable, and that their
property could be taken at any time
upon a fair compensation.
He stated further that while the
principle of municipal ownership
was sound, it was the exercise of
a power which should not usually
be attempted until private operation
had demonstrated that the utility
was self-sustaining and profitable,
and the only risk the city then took
in municipal ownership was in OBJ
tanning men of the necessary expert
ence to operate the utility, and this
could unquestionably be done. He
stated that if the stock in The cor
poration was watered, somebody had
to lose even on fair valuation with
cut municipal ownership, and that it
was more equitable the loss should
fall on the makers of a bad invest
ment than on all the people in the
form of inadequate service and ex-
cessive charges.
The corporation counse's view
that the street railways contained
much watered stock is not confined
to him alone. 1t is generally accept
ed and his statement of where the
loss should fall is just and right. His
observation that the electric light
consumers were largely paying divi-
dends of one of the railroad COM
panies is matter of common bnowl-
edge. The efforts of the Public
Utilities Commission to divorce the
electric lighting and the railway in
tercsts are for the public good and
the reasons for so doing are unan-
swerable.
The corporation counsel stated
further that public utility commits
sions were of great value in regulat-
ing service and prices, in affording
relief from excessive and discrimi-
natory charges, and preventing in
fated capitalization and improper
bond issues; but that in time it
would be found that the manage
ment of the public utilities under
private ownership would be unwill-
ing to expend their energies for the
limited return allowed by law as a
fair earning on their investment in
a public service, and that the re-
suit of this would be that this man.
agement would finally be found in
favor of assisting the municipality
in taking over the utilities.
These views are fundamentally
sound. The legal position is sus-
tanned by an almost unbroken line of
court decisions, and the economic
principle is founded on common
sense and human experience.
There is no question that munich
pal ownership of lighting and street
railway facilities is coming in Wash
ington in the not remote future. 1t
is feasible now. 1t will be more
feasible when the Public Utilities
Commission has completed its valu-
alton. In the meantime this COM
mission will do the good work of
compelling adequate service, reason
able extensions, and universal trans
fers, and in the case of the lighting
companies, much lower rates. All
Of these things are coming and they
are coming in their good and proper
season, and because they are right.
A public utility is not in principle
a private affair for private gain and
personal profit. 1t is a public mat
ter and the service of the public is
the first consideration.
1t will require much more than in
sinuating personalities on trivial
matters by the champions of special
privileges and private monopoly to