know that by reason of seniority, I have lost my place, and people would not listen to me.

I thank you for your attention and hope you will accept this as a performance of my contract to make a speech.

APPENDIX R.

MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP OF LIGHT, WATER AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.*

PAPER BY PAUL F. AKIN OF THE CARTERSVILLE BAR.

Municipal ownership of Light, Water and Transportation systems has been tried in a sufficient number of cities to demonstrate to a great many of the most advanced thinkers on this subject, not only that this solution of the problem is practical, but that it is advisable.

Of these three, the water-works system is, perhaps, more generally owned and operated by municipalities; and those people who are opposed to municipal owership seem to present their arguments more strenously in regard to the latter two.

To me it seems that the government, city or national, should own all systems which affect the public and are operated exclusively for them so that these systems should be operated in the way that will give the greatest benefit to the public and not to a comparatively few-the stockholders in a private carporation. The national government should own and operate these systems-railway, postal, telegraph and telephone-which affect the public of the whole country; and municipalities, those which affect the public of the cities.

A notable illustration of the benefit derived from ownership of railroads by the government is Australia. There the railroads compare favorably in construction and operation with the railroads of this country. They were built several thousand

A symposium on this interesting subject was planned by the Executive Committee, and several short papers were promised. That of Mr. Akin, however, was the only one forthcoming. Mr. Akin himself not being present, the paper is here printed by direction of the committee. -Secretary

dollars cheaper per milé than those in the United States; they are operated cheaper and there are more miles of roads to the number of the people. The experiment has been declared a suc

cess.

Now, if a national government can construct, own and operate national railways successfully, why can not a municipal government do the same in regard to street railways? And if municipalities can operate street railways so that the public will derive the greatest possible benefit therefrom, can they not do the same with water and light systems?

The streets of a city are made and intended for the use of the public. The citizens of the city pay the necessary taxes to keep the streets in repair. The citizens ought to be the recipients of whatever revenue is derived from the use of the streets. But this is not always the case. Instead of the taxpayers getting this benefit, we see municipalities granting franchises, which are often very valuable, for long terms of years to railway, electric and gaslight companies without charging them one cent, paying a high rate for lights-in the case of the latter two-then taxing the citizens to pay this extra expense. On the other hand, if these systems were owned by municipalities, light, water and transportation could be furnished the taxpayers at a much smaller cost than is charged when the systems are owned by private corporations; or, the citizens could be furnished at the same rate and the profits, which are often enormous but which are sometimes made to appear small by the private corporations watering their stock, would go into the city treasury and reduce the

taxes.

Glasgow, Scotland, gradually bought the street railway, water and light plant and now owns and operates them. The profits go into the city treasury, and are so large that all of the municipal expenses are paid without the citizens being taxed one penny. If Glasgow can do this, why can not the enterprising, energetic and progressive cities of the United States do as well, if not better? To say that they could not, would be saying that

the people of the United States did not have that push and energy and ability to successfully manage large enterprises-the very thing for which America is most noted among the nations.

Detroit, Michigan, is, perhaps, the most progressive city in the line of municipal ownership in the United States, owning and operating gas and electric light plants and water-works system. By the operation of the electric light plant alone, the city saves over one hundred thousand dollars a year; and also saves large sums by operating the other two systems. What vast amounts other cities could save if they would follow in the footsteps of Detroit.

We are all familiar with the struggle Chicago had with the corporation owning the street railways when it was trying to get the municipal authorities to extend its franchises for fifty years; the vast amount of money the corporation spent buying the council, and how, had it not been for the veto power of Mayor Harrison, the franchises would have been given. It is said that Mayor Harrison could have become, suddenly, a very rich man had he not used his veto power. Think of the value of those franchises if the corporation wanting them could afford to spend the amount of money they are reported to have spent in buying a sufficient number of votes in the council and trying to buy the mayor. And yet these franchises are generally given away. What a saving to the city if it owned and operated only its street railways, to say nothing of the electric light plant.

Boston owns and operates a municipal printing plant. It does all the printing for the city. At the contract price which, before the plant's construction, had been paid for printing for the city, over eight thousand was saved the first eleven months and over ten thousand dollars each succeeding year. I mention this fact to show that municipal ownership of all public utilities is best and cheapest for the taxpayers of municipalities.

Not long since I saw a list of twenty cities, all of about the same number of inhabitants each. In ten of these cities the electric light plant was owned and operated by the municipal

authorities; and in the other ten, by private corporations. The cost of the arc lights was about forty dollars cheaper per light in those cities where there was municipal ownership.

Existing conditions in our own capital city are a fit illus tration for the advocate of municipal ownership. The daily papers are filled with various contentions of various gentlemen, not on the subject of municipal ownership, but on one, which, if municipal ownership existed, or was contemplated, would abolish the contentions and contenders, and give to the public the large profits evidently expected by the rival private corporations.

The facts, as I understand them, are briefly as follows:-Two rival private corporations want electric light and street railway franchises and are spending money in obtaining the best talent possible in contending before the municipal authorities and in the federal courts, while the taxpayers do not receive even the benefit of competition. They are both after what nearly everybody wants-the "almighty dollar." Neither is very anxious for competition. Both have tasted the fruits of monopoly and liked it. Both realize the franchises they have, and those they want are so very valuable that they are willing to expend large sums of money in erecting electric light plants and street railway systems which will not have a monopoly, but which will be competitive. Both have had franchises given them and want others. Why are these franchises, which must be of great value, given away? Instead of the city giving franchises to a private corporation allowing it to erect an electric light plant or street railway system, why does not the city erect its own light plant and railway systems, or condemn and buy those in operation, and furnish lights and transportation at cost, or, furnish them at the same rate now paid and turn the profits into the city treasury? Why do not the citizens receive the benefits derived from the use of the streets? Suppose the rival companies should combine; the almost universal history of competitive private corporations owning and operating public utilities in the same

14 g ba