Evening star., 1914-07-17
C|Ty-OWNEDu|NES
| FAIL AND SUCCEED
Reports From Three PAGES in
Canada Show Municipal
Ownership Failure in Two.
SUCCESS IN SASKATOON,
LABOR OFFICIAL AYERS
Union Labor Advocate Today Prints
Letters Showing Situation Where
j System Is in Operation.


called a success.
THE Union Labor Advocate this week
has received letters from the secretaries
OF the three typographical unions in Ed
monitor. Lethbridge and Saskatoon. Can
ada. telling of the experience with mu-
nicipallv owned and operated street cars
in those cities and showing failure in two
OF them.
Failure in Edmonton.
pointing 10 You. 1 must give an unbiased.
unpolitical opinion on such question as
municipal ownership-it is an utter failure
in Edmonton. writes J. Hanning. secre-
tary of the typographical union of that
city. on learning that municipal owner
ship of the street railways of the Amer
lean capital is proposed and advocated by
some union men.
Our street cars have undoubtedly not
Oeen success. l am no longer a be-
never in municipal ownership. writes
Secretary Jones of the Lethbrdge union
Success in Saskatoon.
In Saska toon. where the municipality
owned street railway is only year old,
Secretary R. c. Moore writes that it is
success. But one thing you can be as
sured of. he saws in conclusion. is that
municipal ownership is a success in Sas-
katoon and all through the west l am
not speaking because of my principles as
a union man. but from facts that cannot
be disputed"
In the following letters the Union Labc
advocate is giving to the organized labo.
men of Washington the only first-hand
owned and operated street railways that
has been furnished by representative
Of union labor.
Car Suofor, The D>&.>.x
EDMONTON, Alberta, Canada,
July 2. 1914
To Sam De Nedrey, Union Labor Adyo-
cate.
Dear Mr.. De Nedrey: Your letter
dated June 26 has received my care
full consideration. and although the
news might be Disappointing to Won
! must give an unbiased. unpolitical opin-
ION on such question as municipal own
ershlp-it is an utter failure in Edmonton.
The street car system is the poorest Of
five cities I have lived in-Toronto' Van
couver. Portland. Winnipeg and Edmon-
ton-and the fares are equal to the high.
est-straight ) cents.
The reason for the failure Of municipal
ownership to compete. or even compare
with private ownership in this city is
because the spoils system entirely eiimi-
mates all chances of getting competent
men to run it. Every year the adminis-
tration changes and with it the entire
stan goes. too. Always incompetent men
are given the jobs. their ability lying in
their power to get votes We have the
real estate alderman, who makes it his
business to use his influence to get a
STUB line built at the citys expense to a
SUBDIVISION in the woods for the purpose
OF selling town lots and incidentally
piling on the expenses of the CORPORATION
(city) by running empty cars to unpopu-
lated districts.
1t Is true they have lost S4OnOOO since
It's inception. and it looks as though they
will lose more. The city owns the electric
light system and sells the street car
service power at cents per kilo robbinR
Peter to pay Paul. Residents pay as
much as cents per kilo.
Yours very truly,
tSigned) j. HANNING, Sec
Service Is Called Junk"
LETHBRIDGE. Alberta. Canada,
July 4, 1914
Sam De Nedrey.
Washington. D. c.
Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of
June %. re municipal ownership of
street railways. Our street cars have
undoubtedly not been a success main
ly owing to the fact that our city Is
not big enough for a street car sys-
tenn. and the figured loss stated in your
letter is undoubtedly correct. But the
case of Lethbridge does not prove that
municipdi ownership Is not a success.
Neither does 1t prove the contrary.
We. are now running half dozen
cars. controlled by one man on each
car. and it's punk" service at that.
Personally, / am no longer q believer
In municipal ownership.
Yours faithfully,
(signed) j. JONES.
Hurt by Dull Times.
SASKATOON. sask.. June 20, 1914
Sam De Nedrey,
Washington, D. c.
Dear Sir: 1 have yours of the 26th
In reference to our street railway. While
our street railway has not been a sue
cess financially it cannot by any stretch
Of Imagination. be attributed to the fact
that it is municipality owned I am not
sure as to the exact deficit last year the
drst year OF operation) but am positive
1t was not as high as the figures you
quote. When the system was installed
It was generally conceded that 1t would
&c behind for at least five years and the
deficit was not by any means near the
amount that the officials of the city were
prepared to expect. 1t could hardly be
expected that project of this kind
would pay its way at the start, as there
are bound to be flaws and changes to be
made in working out a new system the
expense charged to which Is charged up.
The railway was instituted at a time
boom. as was also all the west, but
Saskatoon in particular was going ahead
by leaps and bounds and was badly In
need of a line of this kind.
The service had hardly got started
when the financial stringency which has
been prevalent all over the world sc,
in and the consequence is that the rail
way has suffered through the lack oi
the development of the city. This one
thing l am assured of. that II things
had kept on going as they were when
the railway was first commenced there
would today be good balance on tn.
right side and in this I will be backed
by every citizen Of the city. canno,
for the life of me see how any one car
point to Saskatoon as an instance OF
failure of municipal ownership. Our
waterworks system Is paying splendid
dividends, as also the electric light, and
a most satisfactory, system Is given II
both
Trouble Lies With Management.
Further. as regards the railway. thers
Is a strong feeling that a good deal ol
the cause for the street railway trouble
des with the management. but this. ol
course. l cannot say. Another reason L.