.VWi
v;
.,.
-r'
MARCH 22, 1007
The Commoner.
7
.-
E3
XrtL
Li
is' "''
&:-
k-r
Mr
IU .
'
ry
Municipal Ownership in Lincoln, Nebraska
Certain newspapers having printed stories to
the effect that municipal ownership in Lincoln,
'Neb., is a failure, P. W. Brown, mayor of that
city, has .Issued flic following interesting and in
structive statement:
F6r the first tinfe since their association began
twenty years ago the fact that W. J. Bryan is u,
resident of" Lincoln has been sought to be turned
to the city's disadvantage, and its citizens, have
recently been pained lo note that the fact that it
is the home of Mr. Bryan has marked Lincoln as
the victim of a cabal that Is conducting a cam
paign against public ownership.
About a mouth ago there was sent out from
this city a letter prepared at the importunity of
such a cabal, the manifest purpose of which was
to discredit municipal ownership of public utili
ties. It was a most glaring misrepresentation of
facts, possessing such glib and glittering quali
ties of deception that it has challenged the atten
tion of friends of this city wherever it has been
published, and to all who are conversant with the
actual facts stamping itself as the uncouth "work
of someone bent on distracting favor from public
ownership of utilities.
This letter was sent broadcast for publication
by any paper that would give it space, but Up to
date my attention has been called to its publica
tion only in two papers, widely separated; the
Philadelphia Record and the Seattle Post-Intelll-gencer.
Under the alarming caption, "Lincoln's
Costly Work Municipal Ownership in Nebraska's
Capital an Utter Failure in Every Aspect Loot,
Ruin and Loss,'' the writer introduces his subject
as follows:
"The incompetency of the municipal ownership
or management of public utilities, and the hope
lessness of the success of either plan, seldom has
been more forcefully illustrated than in Lincoln,
the capital city of Nebraska and the home of that
distinguished politician 'and orator, W. J. Bryan.
The fact that Ml1. Bryan lives in Lincoln, when he
is at home has no direct connection with' the fail
ure of municipal ownership in the Nebraska cap
ital,, but it must, nevertheless, be taken into con
slder'atlou ' 'a '
"Mr. Bryan has preached to Ills fellow-townsmen
for the past twenty years on questions of
government, local, state and national. He believes
in municipal ownership, just as he believes in fed
eral ownership of the railroads, and the casual
American might be justified in the prediction that
the citizens of Lincoln, having listened for years
to his exposition of the solution of the problems
of local government, should have made some tan
gible headway toward the goal of success."
With the Mr. Bryan and government owner
ship phase of this many pointed misrepresenta
tion we have no intent to concern ourselves, as it
is recognized here that Mr. Bryan is more or less
able to talce care of himself, but upon that part
of the letter which reflects upon Lincoln and Its
water and lighting supply I beg to take jssue with
this cabal.
Lincoln is exceptionally blessed'wlth municipal
ownership of two of the utilities in operation here,
the water works and the street lighting system.
There is no sentiment here against municipal own
ership simply because there is no excuse for such
a sentiment. Nothing could be suggested that
'(would arouse greater popular indignation than a
proposition to turn either the water or lighting
plant over to a private corporation at any price.
The city is amply provided in both respects and
everyone here feels the price at which these utili
ties have been supplied has been reasonable, and
that what they have they get cheaply.
Being situated on no stream, except a small and
sluggish affair known as Salt creek from the sa
. line deposits along its low banks, Lincoln must
rely upon wells for- water supply, and out of the
atom of fact that considerable expensive experi
menting was necessary in finding proper locations
for her wells, during the progress of which salt
water was several times encountered, the cabal has
erected a mountain of fiction to the discredit 'of
municipal onershlp. But in spite of the wasto
necessarily Encountered In the subterranean
search for fresh water strata, the city and its
water consumers are still far and away ahead,
financially, of what they would have been under
private ownership, judging from comparison with
cities where the latter prevails.
The city of Lincoln, has three separate and well
equipped pumping stations, tapping different
water levels, with a combined capacity of 7,500,
000 gallons per diem. It has upwards of- slxty-
five miles of principal mains, and 570 fire hy
drants, 5,G24 services and pumps 2,200,000 gallons
daily.
Ii 1881 (five years before Mr. Bryan located in
Lincoln) arrangements were made for the estab
lishment of Lincoln's first and only water works,
at which time bonds were voted. On Juno 5, 1885.
the city had laid eleven miles of pipe and had
one open well in Salt creek bottom, with pumps of
a capacity of two and n half million gallons and
two G-horse power boilers. It was then that the
mains and machinery were tested and the first
tap was driven. They had cost $100,000. In 1887
there was a shortage of water encountered and
provision was attempted for an additional supply,
which proved a failure, owing to impregnation
with salt. '
In 1888 the city climbed the slope nearly two
miles and sunk another open well. The following
year it was equipped to add a million gallons ro
the dally supply. During the three years follow
ing experiments were made with tubular wells at
various widely separated points, which failed be
cause salt water was encountered. In 1897 a
permanent supply of fresh water was secured by
a mammoth open well located up the valley of
Antelope creek at the extreme southeast corner
of the city and well away from the salt creek
bottoms.
These details manifest a sufficient reason why
any plant the iIty may now possess, might have
cost a great deal more than it would be reason
ably worth, and as given they but partially dis
close the experiments effected.
But while all these annoyances were being en
countered the people of this city were being sup
plied with water at just half what it was costing
in any other western city dependent upon wells
for supply, and today the people could readily sell
their plant for tar beyond what it has ever cost
them.
Not only have the consumers been supplied
with water at half the rental charged in other
cities, but during all those years they have saved
the enormous annual expense for fire hydrant
rentals which they would have had to pay under
private ownership.
. It is conceded that errors have been made, but
-many of them were unavoidable and would have
occured under private ownership, whereby the
consumers would have been taxed for their cor
rection far beyond what they now are taxed foi:
water rentals.
The Lincoln water works, with all the duplica
tion of work necessary, have cost the city $583,
47G, and have a bonded debt of $203,000; pays an
annual Interest of $8,700; has gross earnings of
about $70,000, at this time per year, exclusive of
hydrant rental and water for sewer flushing and ,
other municipal purposes, which should add ap
proximately another $35,000 or $40,000 to the gross
earnings; expends annually on extensions about
$22,000, and for maintenance and repairs about
$32,000. Meantime it furnishes water to con
sumers at 15 cents a 1,000 gallons no more and
no less.
Since ttie plant was established, beginning
with seventy-one hjdrants in 1885 and ending with
570 in 1900, the hydrant rentals alone under pri
vate ownership would have cost this city $309,
900 and flushing of sewer and other municipal
.uses of water, conservatively estimated at $0,000
a year, or $132,000 in twenty-two years, runs the
saving in cash up to $501,900.
A statement of Water Commissioner Deffen
baugh for the year ending August 31, 190G, shows
running expenses, not Including depreciation, to
have been $40,(54G.33, including Interest on bonded
debt, and the collections $57,239.11, a net profit of
$1G,592.78 for the year.
In Lincoln the average rental for the -5,G24 ser
vices, big and little, is $12 a year, and the average
annual supply is 80,000 gallons. The average
rental for a G-room residence is approximately $7
a year.
I estimate that Lincoln, on its present basis,
will make approximately $93,500 this year out of
its municipal ownership of 'the water works. I
figure that "under private ownership we would
lose $28,500 hydrant rentals, $10,000 for water for
flushing sewers and supplying public buildings,
$30,000 profits and $25,000 In the difference In
water rentals.
As to the lighting plant, Lt has been running
but little over a year, and its operation has there
fore been experimental in a certain degree. It Is
operated in conjunction with one of the water
works stations, and has given, and promises to
give the most eminent satisfaction.
'For many years the city paid a private com
pany per month for arc lamps for street lighting,
prices ranging from $10 down to $7.45 under lt
last contract In 1002 for all night lights and $5.45
for midnight lights, moonlight schedule, operating
at that time 180 lamps. Then the city adopted
gas lights until September 1, 1005. when its mu
nicipal plant was Instullcttait a cost of $80,090.89.
The figures as to cost are taken from the state
ment of City Auditor Pratt.
The annual report of Mr. Deffenbaugh, win,
as water commissioner, is also in charge of the
lighting plnnt, shows that for the Initial year end
ing August 31, 190G, the total cost of operation
and maintenance, exclusive of depreciation, was
$10,8(50.51. Tlu'se lights have been all night lights
every night, and of a candle power admittedly
much superior to those furnished under private
ownership. The city uses 330 of them, and the
water commissioner's statement shows that the
average cost of them is $4.20 per light per month.
Steps are being taken now to authorize the city
to equip the plnnt for commercial lighting with
a view of further reducing the cost of publje
lighting.
These are some of the reasons why there is no
sentiment in Mr. Bryan's home city against the
municipal ownership, at least, of our public utili
ties. No man -would have the temerity to inti
mate in Lincoln that municipal ownership has
borne the semblance of failure here, and it is only
the mendacious nnti-public ownership Intrigue that
would exploit such nn assertion, even as far away
as Philadelphia and Seattle.
F. W. BROW.N, Mayor.
oooo
"POPULISM" IN WALL STREET
In its issue of February 22, 1U07, the Wall
Street Journal printed an editorial from wnich
these extracts were taken:
"This ignoring of the effect of nn increased
production of gold upon prices and interest, how
ever, is limited to the present time. There are few
who deny that the enormous production of gold
from California and Australia during the decade
1851-18G0 advanced prices of commodities and in
creased rates of interest. In that decade the
world's production of gold was $1,332,981,000, an
annual average of $133,298,100. The world's pro
duction of gold for the ton years ending with 1905
was $2,894,589,01)0, an annual average of $289,i58,
900. The world's production of gold in 1900 In es
timated at nearly $400,000,000, and it is expected
that this amount will be exceeded during the cur
rent year.
"An increase in the production of any other
commodity than gold, other conditions remaining
unchanged, causes a fall In the price of that com
modity. But the price of gold Is fixed by the law
of Great Britain, which requires the Bank of Eng
land to buy all the gold that may be tendered at
the price of 77s 9d per ounce standard, eleven
twelfths fine, and by the law of the United States
which requires the mint to purchase all gold of
fered at $20,072 for each ounde of pure gold."
This Wall street editorial was of particular In
terest to Thomas II. Tibbies, as Indeed it must
be to every other old time populist. Referring In
his paper, The Investigator, to this editorial Mr.
Tibbies says: "It seems strange to see in ' the
Wall Street Journal exactly the same arguments
that were the chief stock In trade with the pop
ulists from 1890 to 1900, but nevertheless they are
to be found th')re and stated as dogmatically as
if these same theories had not been denounced In
that paper and all other plutocratic papers of the
east as anarchy and socialism ten years a.go. The
populists continually called attention to increase
in prices caused by the discoveries of gold in Cal
ifornia and Australia. They went back to the
time of the discovery of the new world and quoted
history to prove the rise in prices when the Span
ish galleons carried back to Europe tons of gold
and silver. And now the Wall Street Journal
says that the denial that an increase in the volume
of money raises prices is limited to the present
time! There was another thing that the populists
insisted upon. They said the price of gold was
fixed by law and as long as the law existed there
could be no change in' the price. Their opponents
said that gold had an 'intrinsic value' and the law
had no effect upon Its price. Now the Wall Street
Journal indorses the old populist doctrine and says
the same thing."
Labor has very little to thank the Fifty-ninth
congress for. The only bill affecting the Interests
of labor enacted into law was the LaFollette bill
providing for eight hours continuous rest in twenty-four
for all men engaged In the train service.
The eight hour bill and the child labor bill weroi
smothered.
Ml
J I
J
-1
tfc. &$&&&. tjtjrf.
. .
,