Evening star., 1917-12-08
Public Utility Corporations.
To the Editor Of The star

10 tne Edtfof OF The Star:
I. have just read in your issue of
December s an account of the Chesa-
peake and Potomac Telephone Conn
pany and the Washington Gas Light
Company proposing to increase their
rates. In doing this they are demon
strating the fact that the spirit of the
octopus still dominates their attitude
toward the goose" (public). that since
their existance has been so prolidcally
laying for them the golden egg"
The telephone and gas companies are
not quasi public institutions, but they
are absolutely wholly public in. their
nature, as much SO as the post ONCE
system. Now. therefore. when a prf-
vate individual owns and operates
what in the name Of common democ-
racy he should never have owned. and
cannot do SO advantageously (for his
private interest), he should volunteer
proper consideration to its rightful
owners. y
II the telephone and gas companies
cannot do business with the people ex-
cept at a loss, why should they be al
lowed by the government to compel
the people to do business with them at
q loss? 1t the people have to do busi-
ness with anybody at all TAT loss, is
1t not better for the commonwealth
that they do the particular business
with themselves? Why should they be
required to support or patronize an in
stitutton that is by nature public in it's
every function which through a mis-
hap or an oversight is permitted to be
privately owned.
The idea of private ownership un-
doubtedly had its origin in the belief
that society would receive greater
benefits from private ownership of
public utilities than they would by the
common ownership. The great radical
trouble with the private ownership of
institutions that are necessarily and
cannot be otherwise than public in
their nature is that they are operated
with more consideration for private
interests than the public good.
Now is the psychological moment for
the government to take over these two
public utilities. In the demand for an
increase for their service they are
ignoring the public welfare, and are
governed completely by private inter-
ests. I am from Missouri" on the sub
Ject Of the present rate of charghs not
yielding fair rate of interest or a
reasonable profit believe that the
government can operate them at the
present rate without any loss. And IL
1t cannot, 1t would be better for the
public to operate them at a loss to
itself than for private ownership to
operate them at gain. and the people
have to pay the excess profits.
It is better for the people to operate
them at loss and sustain the loss
than for them to be privately operated
at gain to the owners (but at q loss
to the public). and the people having
to sustain this loss in the payment of
additional profits into the pockets of
private Individuals In this case main
mi he
more wholesome for the commonweal
than private ownership. And again,
collectivism would be the correction of
a long and radical mistake-private
ownership, of institutions that are pub
lilo per Sc. To my mind they are in
controvertibly public institutions, and
the public interest will never get the
service out of them that they are en-
titled to under private ownership.
= WILLIAM MERRITT HAIRSTQN