Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1914-05-27


ties commission to create regulated monopoly in public
utility service is not all against the creation OF such
monopoly. There has been much criticism directed
against the public utilities commission Of this state be-
cause Of it's alleged creation Of monopoly in the electric
light and power business in certain localities and In the
telephone business in certain places The Pennsy
public utilities commission, III case reported IN the
7'Eectrcal World, has adopted the principle OF mon
opoly in public utility service In its decision that COM
mission said:
% the es n, ito SECURE s sns 0ws s ' sa
Hsa f ss ava %als sS
5 % @ Sa .asns W nn Psep p n
must extended to pg on y the s a tt n the may biz du
p ploed T in tnan
We have heretofore expressed some views upon the
vested interest decisions of courts but the fact
stands that the everywhere will recognize and fully
protect vested interests That being true, it folly
view it, for the people of any community or in any
invite unnecessary vested rights to be acquired
by capital. Mind that say unnecessary vested
rights This should not be construed into antagonlsm to
the acquisition of vested rights" where the interests of
the public will be served thereby and not hndered which
would bound to be the should unnecessary vested
rights be acquired.
If it should be suggested that city owning it's
electric light water plant would be benefited by owning
two such plants instead of single able to give the
qured service everybody would Immediately the alb
surdty of such procedure and the suggested duplication
of plant would be promptly repudiated.
But in view Of the attitude of the courts toward
vesed interests it is just great folly view it,
existing plantto create duplication of the vested in
terest-as it would be to advocate the duplication of
municipality -owned plant.
The Of the whole thing is the regulation.
With municipality owned plant, there would be, of
course competent and efficient regulation else municipal
ownership must be regarded failure 1t is because
this regulation would be efficient and competent that it
would be folly to demand two municipally owned plants
instead of the
Now with efficient and competent regulation of
poraoncontroed plant where how could there be any
greater advantage in inviting competitive plant than
there would be under efficiently and competenty
trolled municipal plant?
We speaking of plants adequate to afford the
required service If we had municipay -owned plant
which not adequate to furnish the required service
should of course advocate the extension of the existing
plant if that possible the building of
plant if that more feasible
Just So if existing corporation controed plant
an existing vested interest capable of furnishing
the required service another company desires
in and supplement the existing plant and supply the de-
mand for that kind of service then the public utilities
commission should grant permission for the entrance of
such service into the field.
But this is matter that should be left to the
mission to determine subject to the usual appeal and
view by the for the correction of and the
venon of fraud and such competition should not be de-
manded upon the general principle that competition
is good thing for shall see sometimes it is and
sometimes it isn't
An additional objection to free and unrestraned
petition which people still affect to believe is des
able under efficient regulation the fact that under