Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-07-03

general will have less safeguards than
at present against abuses Of misman-
agement II dissatisfied with the Commits
sioners as railway managers they can
not discharge them. II Disguised with
the policies pursued the owners cannot
alter them. II rebellious over poor
equipment and poor service, slow, in
frequent or overcrowded cars, the
community cannot drag the railroad
management before a public utilities
commission for admonition or punish
ment. Under the Crosser bill there will
be no public utilities commission to safe
guard community rights: and the Com
missioners who are to control the rail-
ways are responsible to nobody appar-
entity for their management or misman-
agement. and least Of all to the owners
of the railways. the taxpaying people OF
the community, who do not select the
Commissioners, cannot discharge them
and have no power to compel them 10
alter any policy or to do or to leave I'M
done any act in railway management:
The Crosser bill sets up municipal
ownership without municipal control. II
reduces the power Of the people to mold
street railway conditions in their own
interest while burdening them as nominal
owners with millions of dollars OF bonded
debt. The conmunity's sole function is
to bear all the burden of Indebtedness m
Cured in buying the roads and to pay
from future taxes such bills OF expense
for poor management by inexperienced
officials as these officials choose &c lncu:
in their name. The community as owner
under the Crosser bill has obviously less
control over the property and less power
to safeguard its own interests than under
the system of private ownership which
1t Is proposed to displace.
Frank Parsons in his Story of New
Zealand says in 1904 that the evils Incl
dental to government ownership mac ho.
then materialized in New Zealand ana
were not likely to manifest themselves
to any serious extent where the govern
ment as well as the railroads were really
owned and operated by the people mere
political rings and bosses are IN conlToi'
he says, these evils are very nkeis 70
occur Following this line Of thought,
Parsons declares that government owner
ship of the railroads, while. in his opill-
ion. good for New Zealand. would not
do for the United States. 1T could not
be done in America yet, for the common
people do not own the government. That
is the first condition. In New @ealalia
the common people own and operate the
government. and are therefore aole 10
have the railways managed in their m
terest ." The essence of ownership
is control
in direct accord with Parsons reason
ing since control by the people is the
supreme test, municipal ownership is
illogical and unwise in the case Of a
not controlled by It's people.
Confiscation of Franchise Values.
Another reason why municipal owner
ship should he n last resort here IL
found In the difficulty of fixing
price for the compulsory purchase of
the railways which shall be fair to
both taxpayers and stockholders.
The Crosser proposition. as defined
and urged by it's leading advocates,
cOntemplates a guaranty against loss In
favor Of the taxpayers by suEEestinE
practical cOn6scRtiOn OF present frnn-
chise values on the same lofty prtnci-
ple which views ms a virtue a single
tax confiscatiOn of land values.
Both cOnfncatiOns are tainted with
dishonesty and are Obviously grossly
ineouitable to the Individuals whose
property II taken from them without
their consent.
The present owners of the Washington
street railways are the men. women and
children who own street railway STOCK
They are largely Washingtonians. Some
are large owners; many are small own
ers They have paid all sorts of prices
for their stock. A few still remain who
bought as a gamble at low prices III the
period of no-dividends. experiment fall
ure and pessimism. Most of the present
owners have bought after the losses and
period had been endured. and some re-
turns in dividends were in evidence or
immediate prospect. Many, Influenced by
a confidence. perhaps foolish. In the fu-
| ture prospects of the property. have paid
excessive prices for watered. exchange
| manipulated and inflated stock
| If the Washington taxpayers will buy
| the street railways from the Washing
| ton stockholders who now own them, how
| much will they fairly pay? VIII they
| give back to the many who have been
| lured into paying inflated prices Tor
| watered stock the money which they
| have invested? Or will they disregard
entirely the money paid in by the pres
| ent owners. and the market value Of the
stock. and confiscate the future franchise
values which the stockholders thought
| they owned by paving only the amount
| necessary to replace the exlSung equip
| ment and plant?
| Why should Washingtonians as taxpay-
| ers cheat Washingtonlans as stock-own-
| ers by taking away stock ownership at
| a less price than these stockholders paid?
| If the taxpayers reimburse the stock
! holders including those who have paid
| artificially inflated prices, they will be
| foolish If they do not reimburse the
stockholders and confiscate the future
| franchise value that entered into the
stockholders investment when he bought
| the transaction will be in essence dis
honest. If in buying one must be either
a fool or a knave, one should not buy
Why not leave matters as they stand
since the public demand for good serv-
ice and reasonable charges can now be
safeguarded at the expense. if necessary.
of the stockholders through the public
utilities commission and 10 accordance
with the law? Why should Washing
tonians who as stockholders select the
officials who control for them their prop
erty be deprived of this ownership and
contro. by Washingtonians as taxpayers
who after coniscation turn over man
agement and control Of the property to
the District Commissioners whom they
do not select and over whom they have
no control? While nominally Municipal
or public ownership is substituted for
private ownership. is not the transaction
in Its essence the substitution of alien.
irresponsible control by three men not
chosen by the owners of the roads for
democratic and representative control by
the community through directors elected
by stockholders?
The radical advocate of public owner
ship of public utilities denies any right
of private ownership in these utilities.
just as the radical single-taxer denies
any right of private ownership in land.
Neither sees anything criminal, and rec
ognizes only a virtuous act in confiscat-