Whether these municipal monopolies should be public or private property is one of the most debated questions of the day.

In regard to the water works, the question has already been settled in favor of city ownership. A pure and abundant water supply is a necessity. A city which fails to secure such a supply, though it has all else that is needful, can hardly be regarded as a desirable place in which to live.

A revenue from the water works is the last thing to be considered; the lives of the citizens are imperiled if moneymaking is made a chief consideration. The great Catskill Aqueduct would never have been constructed by a private company, as it cannot be expected to be a money-making enterprise.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century there were seventeen cities provided with a system of water works, but in only one of these did the city own the works. The beginning of the twentieth century sees a majority of American cities, including almost all of the large ones, owning and managing the water works.

In regard to other municipal natural monopolies, the question between public and private ownership is not yet settled.

Arguments in Favor of Municipal Ownership. - Advocates of municipal ownership give in defence of their position such arguments as the following:

1. Private ownership has led to immense losses through allowing rival companies to control works of the same kind, since a joining of the companies and high prices generally follow. Monopoly prices of private companies are so high as to amount to a public burden.

2. The city may charge a smaller price and still make a revenue, as the city would be free from all danger of competition.

3. There would be less corruption in politics under municipal ownership. Most of the corruption of the city officials comes through private companies seeking franchises or other privileges. To increase the power of the municipal government would arouse greater interest in municipal affairs and cause a better class of officials to be elected.

4. The success of municipal undertakings of this kind is given as a reason for the extension of the policy of municipal ownership. In England and Continental Europe experience with public ownership has been extensive and satisfactory.1 In the United States public ownership has seldom been practised. In no large city is the gas plant owned and managed by the city. Philadelphia has owned her gas works since 1841, but now lets them to a private corporation.

Richmond (Va.), Wheeling (W. Va.), Duluth (Minn.), and Hamilton (Ohio), are the principal cities which own and manage their gas works. Municipal ownership and management of electric lighting works is more common.

Among the cities owning works for the supply of electric light are Chicago, Detroit, Allegheny, St. Joseph, Little Rock, Jacksonville, and Tacoma. In most cases the city ownership of gas and electric lighting works has given satisfaction to the citizens both in quality and price. Success or failure seems to have depended upon the honesty of the local government. There has been practically no

'See Shaw, "Municipal Government in Great Britain," "Municipal Government in Continental Europe."

experience in the United States with municipal ownership of street railways. For a number of years the railroad across the Brooklyn Bridge was jointly owned and managed by the cities of New York and Brooklyn, and the service gave excellent satisfaction. At present this railroad is owned by the city of New York, but is operated by a private corporation.

Arguments against Municipal Ownership.

I.

1. It is often objected that municipal ownership is socialistic.1 This statement is not an argument; the same statement with the same amount of truth may be made in regard to public schools, public libraries, parks, and bridges.

2. City government, it is said, cannot manage industries as well as private corporations, and poor and expensive service would result.

3. The strongest argument against municipal ownership is made by those who acknowledge the evils of private ownership, but claim that public ownership will not remedy the difficulties and that public regulation alone is needed. If natural monopolies are to be private property, they should be subject to public control as is the case in New York State and many other states, which regulate private monopolies by public service commissions. Such rules as the following are recommended:

a. Franchises should not be given away, but granted for a limited period, not exceeding twenty-five years, and the city should receive a fair price for the privileges given.

1 Socialism means the public ownership and management of all lines of industry.

This price should include a sum paid at the beginning, and a percentage of the receipts of the company.

b. The possessor of a franchise should be protected against any attempt at competition by having the exclusive right to furnish the service within the city, or a part of the city.

c. Quality and prices should be regulated by law.

d. When the term for which the franchise was granted expires, it should return to the city, which should thus have the right to get control of the works.

e.

Financial accounts of the corporation receiving the franchise should be matters of public record.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

1. Account for the existence of corruption in municipal politics. 2. What is meant by civil service reform? What features must a good civil service law include?

3. Why should national and city politics be separated?

4. To what extent should a city be granted "home rule"?

5. Discuss city ownership of the gas works, the electric light works, and street railroads.

QUESTIONS SUGGESTED BY THE TEXT

1. Is your city, or the city nearest you, well governed? Give reasons for your opinion.

2. How can you help to give your city better government?

3. Give an example of some benefit derived by a citizen from the public service commission.