New-York tribune., 1920-08-30
Wilcox Says U. S.
Board Ignored
Part of Report
Charges American Electric
Railways Association Fur
nished the Money for
Publishing Testim ony

Severe criticism of certain aspects Of
the Federal Electric Railways Commits
sions report, recently filed with Presi-
dent. Wilson and made public last
week, is contained in statement given
out yesterday by DR.. Deios F. Wilcox,
of this city.
DR., Wilcox is the public utility ex-
pert whose services were engaged by
the commission to aid in the analysis
of the testimony taken last year in
public hearings held in New York and
Washington. His analysis included a
study of detailed revenue and traffic
figures from most of the important
street railway systems of the country
showing the effect of fare increases.
DR.. Wilcox reached the conclusion
that the only permanent solution to the
electric railway problem is public own
in its report to the President, called
his analysis "a complete and masterful
study Of the whole electric railway
problem" and followed many of its
suggestions, but was in favor of a
service-at-cost plan instead of public
ownership. The commission voted not
to print the Wilcox analysis and ex-
cluded from the record his table show
ing the alleged detrimental effect of
increased fares.
Dr. Wilcox's statement alleges that
the funds for printing and distributing
the testimony and the commissions
own report were furnished by the
American Electric Railways Associa-
ton. His principal criticisms are
directed against the commissions oppo-
sition to public ownership and its fail
ure to print his analysis as part of
the record, which is to be deposited
with the public libraries of the coun-
try, the state public service commits
slons and the mayors of the principal
cities.
II have no doubt that most of the
commissions recommendations would
nave been acceptable to all parties if
the body had not failed in it's treat
ment of the most fundamental of all
the questions involved in the electric
railway problem the statement says.
What we need in this country is
policy, not a plea of avoidance. The
commission has not outlined any clear
cut policy, although it evidently favors
a continuation of private management
OF private business. The commission
is opposed to municipal ownership and
operation, but rests its position en-
tlrely on general judgment unsupported
by any citation of evidence
Opposition is based on the ground
tnat IN this country as applied to
street railways municipal ownership is
new and untried policy, although it
is not disputed that in other countries
pubhc ownership of local traction lines
has worked WELL
1T is not clear why service-at-cost
which is admitted to be in the OK,
perlmental stage, is strongly recon-
mended by the commission While
municipal m ownership, also said to be in
the experimental stage is rejected and
put Oft as something that may have to
De accepted in spots as last resort
municipal ownership and operation
was lnaugurated by the city of Glas-
gov twenty-six years ago and proved
SO successful that it has become the
h!rmly established policy of the bio
cities of Great Britain. The Glasoow
municipal railways have paid for them
serves out of their earnings and are
now clear of debt: The Liverpool tram
ways and other municipal systems in
nfeat Britain are following the same
course.
In this country the San Francisco
munlc!pal railway has been in opera
tlon slnce 1912, almost as long as the
Sservlce-at-cost plan adopted by Cleve.
lano' and the success of the Frisco ex
pertinent has been quite as notable a $
those tried in England"