MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP. Possession by a municipality or any minor civil division of the State. The term is, however. more commonly limited to public as opposed to private ownership of water-works. lighting plants, street railways, telephone systems. and other revenue-producing industries designed to meet the wants of turban populations. The term generally implies munic ipal operation as well as ownership, but ex ceptions are frequent and sometimes notable. The term •munieipal socialism' has sometimes been used in much the same sense as municipal ownership; but it is more inelusive, embracing various efforts to meet the collective wants of a municipality, whether founded on municipal ownership or not. In its broadest sense, munic ipal socialism would provide for all wants com mon to the citizens of a municipality, in so far as they were not met by the State. A narrower usage would apply the term more particularly to unusual municipal enterprises. such as the man agement of coal-yards or bakeries. The term 'municipal trading' has been applied in England to municipal ownership, but It has not gained currency outside of Great Britain.
The services which a municipality may be ex pected to render its citizens are more compre hensive than those included under municipal ownership. municipal socialism, or municipal trading, as may be seen by referring to the ar ticle MrxieseAnrry. The object of the pres ent article is to consider those undertakings which require the use of the streets or other public places, and which might be carried on by either municipal or private enterprise, hut are actually carried on by the former. Since by their nature such undertakings exclude competition. they are called natural or municipal monopolies. Under either kind of ownership they can be carried on only by authority from the State, in the form of general or special legislation, besides which a private corporation must generally secure the grant of a municipal franchise permitting it to use the public streets. Within the limitations stated the most common olljects of municipal ownership are sewerage systems and water works, and gas and electric-lighting plants. More rarely street railways. ferries, and tele phones are owned by the municipality.
Aqueducts for the supply of the cities of an tiquity were the nearest approach to municipal ownership as the term is understood to-day, al though from remote times cities have owned lands, improved harbors. built docks, and de
rived revenues therefrom. But these services were CO10111(41 to a relatively small number of important cities until the nineteenth venture', when Mater-works, gas-works, electric-light and power plants sprang up with inctea•ing_ rapidity. At the opening of the twentieth century these ser vices were to be found in practically all the larger and in the majority of the smaller munic ipalities of the civilized world, particularly in the rnited States. Great Britain. and to a less extent on the Continent of Europe and in Aus tralia.
The proper scope of municipal ownership is still a subject of debate. 1yeI•haiix the nearest approach to a general agreement is (1) that it Wray rightly emlr•ace all those services which are primarily or largely of a sanitary character, like water supply and sewerage, and (21 that it should be restricted to quasi-public industries, in which private competition is impossible or at best uncertain. Ender (2) some draw the line so as to include only imperative and universal needs, the supplying of which is at the same time a natural monopoly. The difficulty with such a limitation is that it varies with local conditions, time, and individual opinions. Thus the demand for public lighting in the larger cities of the present day is far more imperative than was that for a public water supply a hundred years ago. or in some localities to-day. There is a growing conviction that the relative elwapness and eili ciem•y of are the chief facts to be con sidered in deciding Iwtween public and private ownership. and that local conditions determine whether public or private ownership is the better in these respects. A third point upon which there is more or less agreement is that municipal ownership should not be carried so far as to in crease municipal debts beyond prudent limits. So far as revcnuc-pr•Ddueing municipal works of a monopolistic character are eoneerned. it is generally possible so to adjust ineome and ex pense that the revenue front such undertakings trill meet capital charges as well its other ex penses. lint there is also the possibility that the popular demand for low charges will result in a deficit that most be tact front the general tax rate, and with a large number of municipal un dertakings to be provided for it is conceivable that this might prove financially embarrassing if not disastrous.