The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1917-06-02

Inc llrSt step towards acquiring the
Duluth Street Railway system and its
operation as "a municipally-owned
public utility, was taken Monday aft
ernoon when the city commission
unanimously adopted a resolution in
troduced by Mayor Magney and Com
missioner Phillips.
The commissions action came like
a bomb-shell to the officials of the
street railway company, who declared
they were ''surprised" at the sudden
action of the city fathers.
In ringing statement accompany
ing the resolution Mayor Magney
stated that it is time the city of Du-
luth took hand in the street railway
controversy.
I'VE are tired of asking favors' of
the company" said the mayor. I'VE
are tired going into court every time
we ask anything of them as. matter
of right. We are tired always doing
business with them on their terms
not on our terms. We feel sure the
people will stand with us in the mat
ter, if for no other reason than to
preserve their self-respect"
There is no question in my mind
that the people of Duluth are over
whelmingly in favor of the scent fare
from one end of the city to the other"
he said. ''Those who are now ad-
vocatingathe 1o-cent fare are doing so,
as I understand it only because they
think the city in in the grip of the
street railway company, and it is
10-cent fare, or no street car service
at all to their suburb.
There is no question in my mind
= that the people Of the Gary and New
Duluth settlements are entitled to an
extension of street railway facilities to
their section of the city, or that the
will secure such facilities for them, as
! matter of right and not as matter
| Of favor, as soon as they will get it
in any other way.
"And there is no question in my
mind that when one public service
corpOratitr has franchise and
plant in city so located that it not
| only has, but ought to have a mon
opoly of the Business. it's due to make
extensions to serve the people of all
sections of the city equally is not to
b: restricted by any claim that such
extensions will not, of themselves.
yield 4 profit to the company.
Favors Municipal Ownership.
II am municipal ownership man
not merely as a theorist or an ideal
! list, but as one who believes it is a
strictly practical policy to curb the
| cupidity of privately-owned public
service corporations, and to secure for
j the people, if necessary, the absolute
/ ownership and operation of any pub
: lie utility which will not serve the
! people fairly. I believe that ultimate
ly every public utility which in it's
! very nature is monopoly, Should be
owned and operated by the munich
! pality. Whether ouch public utility IS
! privately or municipality owned, there
/ should be only one such in any COM
munity. I recognize that there may
, be financial and economic reasons
! which should temporarily postpone
the municipal ownership and opera
ton of such utilities under some cir
cumstances. But the purpose Of any
! such utility is primarily to render
public service; and when a privately
owned utility adopts a public-be
damned policy toward the very peo-
pie, whose public highways it is using
free of charge to conduct it's business.
! I think the only recourse is public
ownership and operation.
For Private Profit.
! "Private ownership and operation
Of any public utility is solely for the
purpose Of private profit. Municipal
! ownership and operation is solely for
| the purpose of public service. Why
| should we farm out our public high
ways to the Duluth Street Railway
company, without profit to the peo-
pie, in order to have the Duluth
Street Railway company operate its
cars on them at such fares and tC
| such parts of the city as will return
the greatest profit to it's nonresident
stockholders and officials? Hun.
dreds of thousands of dollars go out
of our city every year to these stock
holders and officials. Why not keer
them in the pockets Of the people WHO
ride on the cars? For, it must be re.
membered that the profits of private
ownership are made out of the very
people who would own and operate
the cars Without any profit under mu-
nicipal ownership. AS service to the
| people is the sole purpose of munich
pal ownership, the people who own
and operate their own public utility
| could secure whatever service they
desired, and secure it at cost.
! Delays Settlement.
"Something has been said about the
city going into the courts for redress
That is exactly what a public service
corporation always wants city to do.
1t allays the clamor of the people and
! delays the settlement of the question.
I am not disposed to let the other fell
low pick the~battleground and the
weapons for me to fight him. Every
! lawyer knows that the courts are so
bound down by constitutions, statutes
and judicial precedents that no prac-
teal redress can be obtained by re-
sort to the courts: especially when the
attorneys of the public utility have
drafted the very franchise which the
courts would be called upon to con-
strue. This has recently been demon
srated in our own courts in a street
railway case, at an expense to the
city of over $4,000, and nothing &C.
complished for the people. 1t is no
reflection on the courts that it SO
happened; but it would be reflection
on the city officials il they let it hap