October 26, 1906.] 



SCIENCE. 



523 



their control or operation by the public 

 authorities is a far more vital question than 

 it was twenty years or even ten years ago. 



There have been three important changes 

 in the public point of view of the muni- 

 cipal ownership question: First, the ene- 

 mies as well as the friends of municipal 

 ownership are now agreed that public utili- 

 ties, if not owned by the city, must be 

 operated under strict franchises, providing 

 for good service and regulation of rates and 

 limited in duration. 



Second, all are agreed that 'public utili- 

 ties' are natural monopolies and that at- 

 tempts to create competition in the gas, 

 water or electric supply are in the long 

 run injurious, both to the stockholders and 

 to the public, and hence should not be 

 permitted. 



Third, the recent disclosures of inef- 

 ficiency, corruption and wholesale graft in 

 some of the private corporations which the 

 public has been accustomed to regard as 

 models of good business management, has 

 enabled people to make a fairer comparison 

 between municipal work and private work. 

 Public utilities in most cities are and must 

 be operated by large corporations, unless 

 the cities themselves take charge. In these 

 corporations, there is and will inevitably 

 be more or less red tape, inefficiency, graft 

 and corruption. It probably still remains 

 true that this corporate management will 

 generally be more efficient than city man- 

 agement, but the diiference is far from be- 

 ing as great as has usually been supposed. 



Public Ownership and the Wage-Earners: 

 H. T. Newcomb, Washington, D. C. 

 In its efforts to convert municipal, state 

 and national governments to particular 

 portions of its socialistic program the per- 

 sistent propaganda of public ownership, 

 whose tireless activities so visibly pervade 

 current American politics, usually de- 

 mands the support of wage-earners upon 



the ground that the employees of public 

 enterprises will be more favorably treated 

 than those of private enterprises in the same 

 field. It is claimed that public ownership 

 means higher wages ; shorter hours of labor, 

 and, generally, better conditions of employ- 

 ment. 



Experience proves not only that the gov- 

 ernment is not the best employer, but that 

 it is not even a fair employer. Nor is this 

 all. When government engages in industry 

 on a large scale the condition of its em- 

 ployees naturally and inevitably degen- 

 erates to that of slavery. 



Government does not advance wages with 

 the increased cost of living. 



Democracy is an arbitrary employer. 

 Public employees must not seek to better 

 their condition, on penalty of discharge, 

 according to President Roosevelt's order of 

 January 31, 1902. 



Compulsory labor in New Zealand (Par- 

 sons, 'Story of New Zealand,' p. 179 seq.) 

 gives no hope to labor for freedom under 

 government employment. 



The public employer has neither the 

 knowledge of labor conditions, nor the in- 

 centive to efficiency which springs from the 

 demand for pecuniary success. As truly as 

 republics are ungrateful, the majority is 

 sure to prove harsh as a task-master, and 

 grudging in yielding compensation to its 

 servants. Its enthusiasms are usually, not 

 always, toward generosity, but they are 

 changing, remittent and unreliable, while 

 its sterner morality produces an ideal of 

 justice that inspires the niggardly legislator 

 while he crushes, in the ostensible interest 

 of the taxpayer, every proposal to deal 

 fairly and, therefore, wisely with the prob- 

 lems arising out of the public employment 

 of labor. More than this; democracy, or 

 the majority, through which it operates, is 

 intolerant of disagreement with its prin- 

 ciples, relentless in beating down opposition 

 to its policies, merciless to the minority 



