The Washington times., 1914-06-25
CITIZENS ADVOCATE
THE CROSSER BILL
Meeting at Anacostia Hears
Arguments For and Against
Municipal Ownership.

Municipal ownership of the street car
systems in the District of Columbis
was advocated and opposed by speakers
at the joint meeting of all citizens as
soc:ations of the east section of the
District last night on the lawn of the
Emmanuel Episcopal Church. in Y
street. The meeting was held under the
auspices of the AnacCusia Citizens AS
sociation, and it was one of the largest
gatherings ever held under auspices OF
the association.
Julian Pierce. chairman of the COM
mtttee on municipal ownership of the
Study Club in Economics. espoused the
causes of Government ownership. and
eloquently supported the Crosser bill
Opposed to his views were William l.
Clark. secretary to President King. OF
the Washington Railway and Electric
Company. and S. Russell Bowen, secre.
tary of the railway company.
Committee To Report.
Representatives from the citizens as.
sociation present will report the knowl.
edge they gained on the subject. tc
their respective associations, and actior
for or against the Crosser bill is ex.
ganizations. While the sentiment pre-
to municipal ownership. no action wa.
taken at the meeting. Charles r. Burr
president of the Anacostia association
presided.
In advancing his arguments for mu.
nicipal ownership. Mr.. Pierce outlined
what he expected WOULD follow IN.
service cor corporations. He called atten
ton to the large dividends earned by
the local street railways. and predicted
that IL these roads were publicly oper
ated a portion OF these diXidends couie
Mr. Pierce dwelt With emphasis or
the prospect OF cheaper fares and uni
yersal transfers under municipal owner
ship. telling OF the benefits to the pub
lie that have followed the acquiring OF
street car lines by certain nunicipali'
: ties, Two-cent fares in Washington
were predicted by Mr.. Pierce. He laio
stress upon the great amount of money
| paid annually 70 the street railway
companies by patrons in the District
He said IL costs the companies betWeer
!. and cents to carry a passenger. arc
municipal ownership this profit would
60 to the public. He EXPRESSED the
1 belief that the roads could be operated
better under municipal ownership thar
| they are at present, as the element oi
private gain would be eliminated anc
! the efforts or all WOulC De ClItSleO u
| lettering the service.
Opposed To the Bill.
William L. Clark argued in opposi
ton to the Crosser bill, calling atten
ton to several municipalities where
| lines were operated by public officers
In each of these places he showed WHERE
municipal ownership had either teer
rOrT1OIeTe failures now ODeTatlnS
at a loss He cited the District Wate
Department as an instance wherein
municipal ownership die not pay, SAYING
| the department was operating each
year at a loss. not receiving sufficicn
revenue to pay all the operating oX
/ penses. He said governmental ineffi
cheney and the change of Commissioner
! each four years would operate to tn
| disadvantage Of the public.
What is the impulse behind thi
! Crcsser bill?" asked Mr.. Clark. Mr.
Crosse- doesn't claim to be an cxper
on municipal ownership. yet he refuse
| to try out his experiment in his hom
town or State. He is trying to max
the District the goat"
Tells of Company Benefits.
The present service given the pub
lie of Washington was referred to a.
an argument against a change t
municipal ownership by S. Russell
Bowen, secretary of the Washington
Railway and Electric Company. HI