Evening capital and Maryland gazette. (Annapolis, Md.) 1910-1922, 1916-02-28
FORMER COUNSELOR
OPPOSES PLAN
Mr.. R. P. Melvin, On Municipal
Ownership, Says Present Con-
ditiOns Are Not Right for
Proposed Step.
WAFER COMPANY A SUCCESS.
And 1t, Therefore, is Not An Object
Lesson Against City Ownership
Comparison is Incorrect AS
Well As Unfair.

wen AS CniaT.
In connection with the discussion o.
municipal ownership. the Eveninf
Capital has asked Mr.. Ridgely p. Mel
vim former City Counselor and a.s1 {
friend OF the present city administra.
ton, FOR statement of his views OF
he subject, believing that his position
is such that his views would be help
fui ir shaping the discussion toward
the right direction In reply. Mr.. Mel
ven has submitted the following
Editor Evening Capital.
in response to your request to me
was former City Counselor. to comment
through your columns. on the PROPOSE
tion of municipal ownership of gas and
electric light plants, l feel eonstrain-
ed 10 accept the Invitation and TO max,
e statement al this time. because 90
my connection with the city government
for the eight years ending July last
pave me special opportupnity to OBJ
serve the ciiy's needs. and its adapta-
oility or rather its ncn-adaptabilnv,
and because CD the issue has been
obscured by mis-representation OF thc
facts and a manifestly incorrccl
and unfair attempt CT comparison
~ith the case OF the Annapolis
Water Company. All of which does the
city administration an injustice. and
which | may be in a position to recti-
~ although it needs no defense.
The desirability of municipal owner
ership in the abstract, is a debatable
proposition. That IS not the question
at issue now. We are dealing with a
condition, and NOT a theory. Annap-
c,is, in my opinion, is not in coudi-
ZION, financially. or economically. to
assume any such burden as would
be caused by the acquisition of a
gas and electric light plant under ex-
listing circumstance. The benefits
which are claimed would accrue would
he az too great cost, both as to the
prohi5itiye an,Ouut OF money inyolvetf
and as to the maze OF detail and ara1ti-
cal complications o be worked out. It
is not necessary 20 enumerate these
here but an inspection. of the existine
franchise of the Annapolis Public Util-
ities Company, with the rights thereby
conferred and the long period OF time
10 run, would suffice to show the prac-
tical difficulties that wold be encount-
cred for coming 10 terms with this
company or competing with il. and IT
a new plant were to be established. the
one point OF laying the mains and con
duits, With rs attendant upheaval Of
our strets. would IN itself. be suFh
cient 20 indicate tho difficulties under
that plan
"A tte service provided by this or any
corporation is. or should become. gen.
orally unsatisfactory, there is way
provided for relief, namely, through
the PuDhc Service Commission of the
state, which exists for jdst such a pur-
pose. II that, ana all other remedies
open 10 as should fail. and we should
como face % face with necessity for
municipal ownership fer our sclf-pro-
lection, then that emergency could be
dealt With H. or when. it should arise.
The case OF the Annapolis Water
Company, however affords no parallel
to fhe case in question. nor any argu
ment against it. and it is unfair to at
tempt the compar son. Those who are
willing to accept the facts as they
exist recognize:
1 I. That the Water Company is a
paying proposition for the city and mas
become more 80 each year. (When it
was private concern it was ably and
successfully managed. and ithes always
borne the stamp OF success) that it not
only costs the city nothing. but more
than takes care OF itself; that the plant
has been materially enhanced in value
ana hat furthermore. improvements
are under way, are being planned. in
c!uding new filtration plant; that the
income Of the Company, and withou,
increasing the water rates-w which. hy
The way, are fixed by the City Council
direCt-has been. and is, sufficient to
pay all its operating expenses, make
substantial improvements and duly
provide for the sinking fund. and stin
leave a surplus. All OF which is shown
by the records Of the Company. which
are at the City Hail and open 10 pub
lie inspection
p That ii has been settled by the
Court of Appeals. which affirmed Judge
Brashears, that this Company is in law
and IN fact municpally owned. and a
Departments OF the city government
There is no longer any ground for ar.
gument on this point
3. That this ownership By the city
was acquired hv the purchase Of the
States holding OF stock in this Com
pany, and after competitive bidding
With private syndicate, who sought
s5renuopsly TO defeat city ownership.
that the burning question then up to
the city WAS whether TO gasn control OF
the Company or 10 let this great op-
poTtunity pass, probably forever that
thes ale By theState was manifestly not
made because Of any presentations
from the City of Annapolis, or on its
behalf lbeing to the highest bidder).
bur vas solely IN pursuance 70 the
Stafe's policy, long before announced.