The Commoner.
I
I
:; Municipal Ownership.
Municipal ownership sentiment is making,
headway. As a stepping stone to the single tax
system it' nay ho one of the most potent factors in
our national development, and it becomes of
greateT importance as the population of the coun
try gathers in jan increasing proportion in cities
an -I towns.
Three-cent fares may ho a step to municipal
ownership, and municipal ownership, by putting
an end to municipal monopolies, will bring nearer
the era of the single tax system, with its remedy
for all the evils of monopolies and special priv
ileges. , Municipal monopolies consist of rights and
special privileges in the public' streets and high
ways which, in the nature of the case, cannot bo
possessed by all the people and can only be en
joyed by a few. A constant struggle goes on to ob
tain such privileges, with the result of checking
and retarding for a long time necessary public im
provements. Rival claimants not .strong enough
to obtain what they want often succeed in check-,
mating each other at the expense of denying to
tho public needed advantages.
Only a very slight observation of, and reflec
tion upon the needs of people crowded together in
,a city, as to facility of moving about, as to com
munication, as to supply of water, as to supply of
artificial light, is needed to satisfy any candid
man that such businesses are in their nature
monopolistic. In other words, they can bo best
carried on, with the best results to the public, un
der a single management and with a single con
sistent policy.
Where competition prevails in such busi
nesses, almost Invariably the public service is
inefficient and defective. "Wherever there is unity,
the condition of Things is much better.
My proposition is to enlarge the function's of
municipalities so that the means of transportation
and communication and the supply of water and
light shall be furnished by public authority and
not by private enterprise, and extend this principle
to its logical result of taking under public ad
ministration all businesses which require the grant
of any special right or privilege,
We have already started on this road, and
made considerable progress. In many cities the
water supply is a public business; in some cities
gas and electric light are manufactured and fur
nished by public authority; in many cities of Eu
rope and Australia 3treet railroads are owned and
operated by the public. Why not go on in this
direction 1111 there shall be no more private prop
erty in special grants or franchises, and till all
business requiring such grants shall be carried on
by the municipalities?
Under present conditions the adoption of this
policy would require . the taking over by the
public only of the water, gas, electric light and
power supply, the telephone and street railroads.
The evils which a great many timid people fear,
as likely to arise from enlarging the scope of tho
functions of municipalities, are trivial in compari
son with the evils which are inseparable from tho
present system.
As long as the great rewards which these
monopolies offer to private enterprise are possible,
your industries will be hampered, your politics will
be corrupted by bribery and fraud, and your peo-,
pie will have to pay unnecessarily high prices for
these kinds of service, and they will be subjected
to daily and hourly inconvenience and vexation,
owing to the poor quality of the service.
I would not advocate any disregard of exist
ing rights, or any confiscation of existing property.
It would be no violation of existing rights for cities
t(; erect their own plants and to compete for the
business as they could readily and successfully do
with the present private owners.
It would 'bo no violation of existing rights
for cities to use their tax power so as to compel
the present private owners to bear the same pro
portion of public burdens, according to the valuo
of their property, including franchises, which
owners of other kinds of private property have to
bear.
It would bo no violation of existing rights,
where tho power has not been bartered away, for
tho cities or the states to regulate fares and rates
of .compensation, so as to make them yield ouly
a fair return on tho actual investment made,
rather than upon a fictitious capitalization, based
mainly upon franchises or special privilege values.
In short, municipalities ought not to hesitate
to do what private persons In business do as a
matter of course. They shouldvrespect the grants
which they have made according to their truo
limits, but, doing this, they should take advantage
of every right that Is left to themselves to get rid
of the present system and substitute therefor a re
gime of rublic ownership and operation. When
this has been done the first long step will have
been taken toward progress in taxation, for there
will bo an object lesson in the abolishment of
special privileges. f
Out of municipal ownership may come freo
street cars. There is no fundamental reason -why
the cars should not be a part of the streets that
are furnished free. for the use of all if tho munic
ipality can afford it. With property paying its
just taxes the municipality can afford it
Street cars may be considered in their relation
to the municipality to resemble the elevators in a
modern building, free to all who have occasion to
use them because they are the "property of tho'
municipality and in the' nature; of an improve-,
ment in, tho sidewalk, just as tho. elevator .is ah Imr
provement on .the stairway. -It is. in jits relation
to the single tax system that I see the greatest
good in municipal ownership, holding, as it does,v
the promise of a firm and vigorous step. to. that
goal. Tom L. Johnson in Chicago Itecord-Horald.
Just Tickled to Death. -
All the administration lawyers engaged in tho
recent colonial cases brought on through the cus
tom house officers of New York city, are "tickled
tc death" at the outcome of tho contest before tho
supreme court. Ex-Attorney General Griggs con
siders the results so satisfactory that he declares
that "the decision scores a victory for the admin
istration in the first and third,' which are the all
important cases,"- and further says:
"It is a splendid victory for the administra
tion on the vital principle of expansion. It is
unnecessary for me to say that I am thoroughly,
satisfied with the result. It is a clear-cut victory
for the government on tho only really important
point involved.
"The court decides that the Foraker act is
constitutional; that this country has the legal
right to govern Its new possessions as territories,
to make- special laws for them and to tax their
products. This has been the contention of the ad
ministration from the very start. It was the prin
cipal issue in the last campaign for president. Our
Porto Rican legislation was selected by Mr. Bryan
as; the main point of attack in his Indianapolis
speech. The decision puts a quietus upon that
sort of thing and takes the matter out of politics,
for all time." ,
And then Senator Foraker himself, who Is as
much tickled over the results as ex-Attorney Gen
eral Griggs, has this to say:
"The decision is a complete vindication of the
position held by the republican party with respect
to the power of congress to legislate for Porto
Rico and the Philippines and settles it once for all
that the United States is the equal in sovereign
power of any other independent government.
"The supreme court goes even farther and says
that if there were no constitutional provisions in
vesting congress with this power, it would never
theless 'ex. necessitate' have this power, since tho
states acting 1n their statal ' capacity- could not
provide the necessary legislation and political sov
ereignty can bo oxcrclscd only by the political de
partment of tho government."
Who would imagine for a moment that two
prominent men like Griggs and Foraker would
permit themselves to "gush" over tho outcome of
a case, the results of which had been obtained by
the closest majority by which a decision of tho
court iqan bo made?
When Griggs rails at Bryan one would sup
pose tho doctrine advanced to bo so thoroughly
primitive and fundamental that even "nine ordi
nary judges" would agreo to the opinion without
hesitation. But what aro tho real facts?
The real brains of the supremo court as rdcog
nized by tho highest legal authority of the land,
opposed this opinion, and stood with Bryan in its
condemnation.
While to be sure this judgment is the law of
tho landand will continue to bo tho law of tho
land until there be a change in tho supreme court
when tho new judge appointed happening to
agreo with tho chief justice or with Juatlco Brewer
or either ono of tho other four judges who dis
sented from tho opinion merely on motion, and
for no considerable expense, this opinion could bo
sent to tho burial ground of "lost causes," and
an entirely contrary opinion could be obtained.
Men who rejoice .over victories won under such
circumstances would be pleased with any sort of a
new toy, and their opinions aro not worth con
sidering. Tho constitution of the United States ought
to be revised. No constitutional question ought
to;bo decided by less than a two-thirds vote of all
the judges and a three-fourths vote would bo
much; safer for tho country. Had such a rule pro
vailed, it would have taken at least six judges,
and possibly seven, to have rendered this constitu
tional opinion, and of course It goes without say
ing that five men out of the nine .could not havo
placed upon the statute books of the country s,uch
a decision.
However, tho battle has been fought out, th
administration has won, and horeaftor the' great
republic of North America can hold Its territorial
acquisitions, obtained either by purchase or by
conquest, as "colonies" precisely as if tho United
States were a kingdom or an empire and the doc
trine of "imperialism," as promulgated by the re
publican party in the campaign of 1900, has be
come an American principle legally and properly
affirmed by the supremo court of the United States.
Seattle Times.
Resents Militarism.
The Boston Post Prints tho following letter:
"The announcement made in tho Post that
'Stub' Carter had been released from the New
Haven jail, where he had been confined for twen
tyrone months for refusing to pay a military tax
of $1 to the state of Connecticut, shows what power
there Is In passive resistance to defeat a tyrannical
measure.
"Carter is a man who does not believe in war
at least, wars of invasion so when the good old
town of Ansonia, Conn., assessed a military tax of
$1 on him he simply said that it was against .his
principle to pay it and that he would go to jail
before he would pay it. Result, twenty-one months
in New Haven jail, at an expense of $2.50 per Week
to the town that sent him there, or, say a total
cost of $227.50 added to the tax levy of Ansonia, as
tho cost of trying to force a man to pay $1 for a
purpose that he did not believe in. And, like Mark
Twain in, his controversy with the missionaries,
the fact that the tax was such a 'little one' had no
weight with Mr. Carter, who evidently believes that
'all just governments rest on the consent of tho
governed,' and that riumbers havo nothing 'to do
with principles. Suppose a million men ip. tho
United States had said with Carter that 'we will
go to. jail before we -will pay a military tax is it
conceivable that McKinley could have secured
$200,000,000 to wage an aggressive war against our
brown brothers 10,000 miles away? Speed the .day
when millions of men will prefer going to jail
rather than spend their time in producing wealth
to be used in murdering their fellow men on tho
field of battle.
"Some day the people jay become sane enough
to remember, with feelings of gratitude, the man
who was willing to lie in prison for twenty-ono
months rather than giye a single dollar to aid tho
work of our American barbarians."
J. T. SMALL,
' Provincetown,' Mass.