Omaha daily bee., 1919-02-27
FACTS ARouT ELECTRIC LIGHTINe.


Lincoln, Feb 25-To the Editor of The
Bee: If you have at your command, it would
be a personal favor to me II you would give
me the facts ais you see them of the contro-
versy between the Electric Light company
and the City Of Omaha, out of which has
grown House Roll $50 which will be up for
hearing soon. What / want is facts.
GEORGE D. MATHEWSON.
We do not understand that there is at pres
ent controversy" between the Electric light
ing company and the City of Omaha, but that
the proposed measure is merely part Of
general program for municipal ownership of all
our public utilities, and their operation not by
our city commissioners, but by the Water board
and its administrative agents.
1t should be recalled that the city has ac-
CURED the waterworks and is now in process of
acquiring the gas plant, which, when purchased,
will be turned over as we understand it, to the
Water board. The Water board is also manu-
featuring and distributing ice. In the case of
the waterworks and the gas plant, the procedure
followed has been to buy existing properties
already monopolzing the field. In the case OF
the ice plant, the enterprise has been undertaken
in competition with already existing manu-
facturers An effort was made four years ago
TO secure authority for the Water board to go
into the electric light and power business OIL
competitive basis. presumably by utilizing
pumping machinery to produce electricity as
well. The Electric lighting company naturally
combated this threat of extinction through
competition with a municipality owned plant,
paying no taxes, and looking for no profit and
it was this bill which was vetoed amidst much
clamor after passing both houses.
So much for the history leading up to the
immediate situation So far as municipal own
ership of electric lighting is concerned The
Bee and its editor are on record in favor of
public ownership and it is the irony of fate that
when a municipal plant was first proposed, The
Bee championed it and supported bond issue
for that purpose, which was only defeated by
political coalition between the Electric lighting
company and the present general manager of
the Water district Had those bonds carried,
Omaha would have had municipal electric light
ing long ago. 1t is only fair to say that under
the present ownership and management of the
Electric lighting company, the evils OF the
earlier period have admittedly passed. and the
rates now charged are reasonably moderate,
comparing favorably with the lowest rate
schedules enforced in any city in the country.
The occasion, therefore, for the municipaliza-
ton of the electric lighting plant in Omaha is
no more nor less urgent today than it has been
for several years or will be for several years to
come.
One phase of this controversy" that should
not be overlooked is the conflict between the
authority of the city and the Water board.
Omaha has now, and has had all along, power
TO buy or build and operate an electric lighting
plant or any other public utility whenever our
people so choose, but this power is vested in the
city and not in the Water district. We submit
that this power should not be lodged in both at
the same time, for we might have the possibil-
ity of the city buying the plant and the Water
board building a plant, with two competing
publcly-owned utilities in consequence. There
is question, too, as to whether, if we are to
have dual plants, the city should be COM
pulsory patron of the Water boards enterprise,
and to have the price fixed for our street light
ing in event of disagreement, by the State Rail-
way commission. We believe in municipal
home rule, and that all these matters should be
settled in Omaha, rather than in Lincoln.
Assuming that municipal electric lighting
plant is desirable, and that its operation should
devove upon the Water board there remains
still the question; What is the right way to go
about it? Should we undertake to acquire the
present plant as going concern if it can be
had at fair price, or shall we destroy its
value and perhaps put it altogether out of bust
ness by using public money to build new
plant and work up business for it although the
existing plant has ample capacity to supply all
needs. Palpably such duplication would con-
stitute colossal economic waste, one paral-
leled only in our experience by the construction
of a second telephone system here, only to be
junked after three or four years at loss of
approximately 100000 Should we serve
notice again upon investors that capital placed
in developing our public services is to have no
considerations but is to be outlawed as soon as
it becomes profitable?
While we have been asked only for facts, !"
we venture this suggestion to our lawmakers:
Make the bill fair before passing it and let
power to construct competing plant be re-
sorted to only in event no reasonable terms can
be had for taking over the property of the
existing company.