Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1916-07-12
The Crosser Bill.

yesterdays action by the House Dis
trict committee on the municipal owner
ship measure revives conditions of two
years ago when the CroSser municipal
ownership bill was similarly reported to
the House. 1t is the same proposition
and there is no reason to believe that
there will be any different result Two
years ago the bill was approved by com
mittec and eventually ignored by the
House for the reason that there is no
demand for such an enactment on the
part of the community. and no DISPOSE
tion in Congress TO force such an i'll
considered system upon the District
e.. Briefly. the proposition of the Crosser
bill is that the District taxpayers shall
incur heavy bonded debt-possibly
$4,000, 000-in order to buy the local
street railways: that the United States
shall repUdiate all responsibility for
this debt. thus abrogating the stili eff
fectlve half -and-hal provision of the
organic act; and that the District tax
turn over their control aud management
absolutely To the District Commissions
ers. who are responsible to them in no
respect. and in whose selection they
have had no voice
When the CrosSer bill was reported
two years ago il was pointed out that no
public demand for it had been voiced
and urged that no such measures should
ever be adopted unless and until it was
directed by a referendum vote Of the
District taxpayers. those who in the
future would he burdeued by the debt
involved in the purchase of the street
railway lines
Municipal ownership of the Washing
$, ton street railways should not now be
considered. InaSmuch as government
regulation through an independent and
impartial public utilities commission.
: only recently created by Congress. has
not vet been thoroughly tested. and re-
sort to municipal ownership should be
had only in the event that government
regulation through commission proves a
failure. Although two years have
elapsed since the same objection was
raised to the Crosser bill of 1914. the
conditions that prevail now are the
. same as at that time. The public utili-
ties commission system has not proved
failure. 1t has. in truth. not vet been
fully tried. In one of the most i'm
portant aspects it is vet to he applied.
for the valuation work undertaken by
the commission is not finished and until
it is finished the real regulation Of the
public utilities cannot be begun.
Those who advocate. municipal owner
. ship on. principle. who believe that the
people of the community should directly
control public utilities. should be I'M
alterablv hostile TO the Crusser propo-
stion, for it fagrantly violates the prin-
eiple that the people of the community
2 as taxpayers buying the roads. should
absolutely control them. The Crosser
bill proposes that after the people of
: the community have burdened them
selves with millions of debt TO buy the
roads the absolute control Of the rail
way shall be turned over To the District
: Commissioners who are not chosen by
the people of the District. who cannot
be discharged by the people if they fail
to give satisfact ion as railway managers
and who are responsible in no manner
or degree to the local community for
any mismanagcmcnt and loss on their
part through the blunders Of inexperi-
encc.
Thus the Crosscr bill now twice re-
ported by the District committee to the
House. presents the paradox that public
ownership of the local railroads as thus
proposed means an absolute reduction
of the public control of those utilities
= This result should offend and ALLEVIATE
every sincere believer in the principle
that the people of community should
control the utilities