The New York herald., 1922-11-05

~ HeIu Dy the economists that taxes
are not eliminated by government
ownership; that just az much money
In taxes is paid. The difference IS in
their distribution. In the case of pri-
vate ownership only actual users OF
electric power pay the tax bill, while
in the case or government owned
utilities all the people pay the bill.
Second-Elimination OF dividends.
high salaried executives and higher
wage scales and achievement Of higher
labor efficiency.
The War Revealed Defects
Of Public Ownership
These claims for public advantage
through government ownership OF
large and basic utilities were advanced
with greater confidence before the ex-
periences OF the late war Certainly
in the war there was not greater labor
efficiency, and II is admitted that many
who formerly were strongly for gov
ernment ownership have receded
sharply from that position lately. II
has been believed it was demonstrated
that, at least as 70 labor efficiency,
there was less under government oper-
alton than under private operation,
whether in transport or industry.
Opponents point TO the subserviency
OF government TO demands for wage
increases and also indicate that II
was not due entirely to stress OF war
necessity but also to political induce
ment by party leaders. On the score
OF the claim OF lower salaries and
wages opponents Of government own
ership emphatically reject it as to
wages and allege higher wages under
the Government regimen.
But as to higher salarie6 executives
under private ownershipt the adrnis-
sion not only is freely made but urged
as desirable. Engineers point to tho
fact that Government experts are no
toriously underpald; that it is difficult
70 obtain the best science and ex-
perience at the low salaries Of the
Government: and that the high sal
aries paid by privately owned utility
concerns are not due, as alleged. to
extravaganza, but to the fact that the
more highly paid men are worth what
they get.
However. as the final test It is
shown that power is furnished at
lower cost on the American side than
on the Canadian side. where govern
ment ownership OF power utilities OBJ
tains.
These alleged and apparently proved
economies by private control on this
side OF the line have been attained
Notwithstanding the American private
companies maintain a capacity SIS per
cent. per capita in excess OF that main
tanned in Canada. thus assuring more
regular supply and less interruption OF
service
Boiling down these findings Il ap-
pears that tho most efficient test--re-
suits attained-supports the argument
OF private ownership Of the electric
power utilities, and one is brought back
TO the alleged elimination Of taxes un-
der Government regimen. This so often
misunderstood thing may be reduced
TO this simple statement:
IL there be private ownership the
privately owned utility will paw an
nually it's taxes into the Government
treasury II there be Government own
ership no taxes will be paid directly
to the Government. II that were equsl
10 something more than tho alleged
simple redistribution rather than
elimination OF taxes with social bene-
Ats there should be lower rates and
better service TO show also In the fnsl
list Of results
The figures az given reveal, however
that on this side OF the boundary line
under private ownership there are
both taxes paid by the private com
panies 10 the support OF the Govern
ment, and, besides. the average price
OF electric current is materially less
here than there 20 the actual con
sumer.
Again. as 90 Canada, II is shown by
the official figures that the Government
commission both buys power and pro-
duces Il. Last year the Government
commission bought u from the private
Ontario Power Company NJ 80 per
horsepower year. and Il cost the com
mission s31.10 to produce such power
in its own plants.
The records In Canada show eiso a
heavy burden OF public debt in the
form OF bonds issued by the Govern
nent Power Commissio The debt
Of the Province OF Ontario Is 20 per
cent. on account Of the Power Com
mission When direct investment bv
the Government in power plants L.
added The total liability OF the Gov
ernment on that account totals s121 p
132 oil. for which In the ultimate the
taxpayers are liable. and which in GER
tain contingencies they would have 10
pay in their annual rates on assess
ments
II appears then. that were the Gov
ernmont ownership principle applied
20 the projected super-power survey
development. and the conditions re
mained as now. the cost 10 the peopls
would be materially more for the
power supplied than under private
ownership 10 is therefore with no
idea OF Government ownership that
the er-power plan IS perfected.
The idea Is that the governments
agencies shall aid in guiding the 6s-
velopment Of properly financed ana or
gani2ed associations OF existing or new
private companies with the intention
OF enectlng economic coordination and
assurance OF constoucy OF supply. ps
electric energy Questions as 20 FcAs
eral or state control OF the gr>at ss>s,
state utilities 90 be created are " b.
answered as conditions develop. Bnt
that modern regulation is 70 be sps