The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1914-07-02
FILES MUNICIPAL
OWNERSHIP REPORT
Congressman Crossed Assails
Alleged DISQUALIFICATION of
Street Railways.
Continued from First Page.)

somewhat amusing to know that the
private iwners of public utilities are the
most eager and vociferous in the de-
mands for regulation. 1t seems to be
assumed that regulation was never at
tempted by public authority during the
early history of public utilities The fact
is that from the very beginning public
utilities were subject to certain legal re-
strictions.
The terms of the franchise and the
traffic regulations were all efforts at
regulation, so that what the advocates
OF regulation and particularly the public
utilities themselves really propose is
just q little different form of regula-
non. Practically every objection and
defect, which has been shown to apply
TO private ownership and operation OF
steel railways under the plan Of con-
trolling by franchise and traffic regula-
ton, applies to the later methods of
regulation.
1t is quite as natural for those who
must use the public property to con-
cuct their business, as the street rail-
ways must do, to make every effort
possible 10 prevent such regulation
from diminishing their profits, as it
was under the old system of reguIa-
Ton. They are just as anxious to have
members OF utilities commissions ap-
pointed or elected, who are satisfac-
tory TO their interests, as they were 10
nave councilmen or aldermen who were
satisfactory 10 them. They support
men who can be counted upon to do
the regulatin to suit their the utili-
ties) interests.
The fact is that the change has
been largely a change of name. The
regulating body is now generally called
d puolc utility commission. whereas it
was formally called a council or board
OF aldermen
From Local to State.
In this connection. however. it is
interesting to note one essential change
upon which the public utilities are in
sisting, and that is the transfer of the
regulating authority from local 10 State
officials. This is very significant. 1t
removes the proceeding for the de-
termination of the public policy re-
garding the local street railway, cleo
lilc hght and other utilities, from the
people of which are the onIy ones af-
Iected by the determination OF such
proceeding, and who best understand
the Questioned involved-to a State
BOARD, IN the election or appointment
~, Snich the people of the municipal
NY nave very little voice.
The Result is that the State board is
nucn less responsive TO the will Of the
Eeople OF tie municipality, who are the
only ones directly affected. This VAS
wen illustrated by the Cleveland street
lava controversy. which coveed a
IN 1901. The people of the cjtv eIecteS
mayor johnson four successive terms
ana council in sympathy with him
three successive terms on the issuc that
me street cars should be operated AT
nat three-ceHt fare.
oostruct the city officials by ali Itin5S
or litigation. The total number NJ -
Junction suits instituted by the street
[ah"dy company amounted TO fiftv-four
OiIe OF these was suit in which II was
S0,ntenoed that the government of
- ;I aa ana every other city in Ohio
"as mega. and. although the sI,nranoa
Sourt OF ONO had many times before
neIn mat these city governments w.
teSai' they 1"vertheless in this instance
me C.t% government Of Cleveland
20 20 De Heesl snd consequently the acts
TIa,.nT mayer ana courcl Of thu city of
oIeNe!ahd In granting franchises n
c"nipetlnS low-fare corlD1nies ,,.o-,
void and OF no effect.
Example of Tendency.
II there had been at that time =
state public utilities commiss on win
authority TO decide the controversy he
'eH 'he sirect railway COMPANY and
me people OF Cleveland. there is no
doubt as to what would have re-, ~, ~
result. The political party in control NJ
ne state government at that time was
dominated by the street railway inter
ests OF the state. and such a commits
SION al that time would have deter
mined the Cleveland street railway con
LroEersy very abruptly. just as the
state board Of review Invariably multi
led the efforts OF local assessing su-
ihorIies 10 put the properly Of large
interests upon the duplicate at A fair
valuation.
We cite this as simply one example
or the very natural tendency OF a pri-
Nateiy owned public utility TO resis: i'm
every way possible every effort TO regu-
late them in any way which will ser.-
onsiy interfere with their profits. and
also To show the tendency OF commits
sions who are not sO!cIy respUnsib," to
tn" persons directly affected by their
decisions"