MUNICIPAL TRADING.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 855, 21 June 1910, Page 2

MUNICIPAL TRADING.

[to the editor,J \ Sir, —The fact of coal, whether municipal or otherwise, being a naturally inflammable product, may, or may not, have led to the somewhat heated discussion and newspaper correspondence which have recently taken place in Foxton. The cynic, on the qui vive for a somewhat illnatured joke, might remark that the natural sequence of a plentiful coal supply would be a superabundance of “gas,” and even at the risk of being classed in the unglorious company of “ gas producers,” it appears that the present would be an opportune moment to glance at the question of municipal trading generally, and see what arguments can be brought forward for and against it. Perhaps, before going any further, it may be as well to define clearly just what we mean when we speak of a municipality. “ This means you!” These three words, usually sub-joined to an equally curt printed request to “shut the door,” are especially applicable when considering tjie real meaning of a municipality. The municipality means all the citizens of a borough. It does not mean the councillors, who are merely elected as mouthpieces of the citizens. Disabuse your mind of the fallacy that if you are not a property-owner your interest in the municipality is less than that of the man owning his own section. As a matter of fact, your interest should be considerably wider, for the landowner’s interest naturally tends to centre in the immediate vicinity of his holding, whilst the mere rent-payer (whose rates, be it noted, are added on to his rent and passed on by his landlord to the borough) is, equally naturally, interested in seeing that improvements and benefits are equally distributed, and that the best interests of the borough as a whole are advanced. This general advanceness means more work for him, and more money in his pocket. Even/ citizen, therefore, becomes a landlord and an employer of labour by virtue of his municipal vote. There is one stock statement used by opponents of municipal trading which is so palpably absurd that it would scarcely seem to require refutation. However, it has beef! stated by a responsible person that “five or ten per cent of Foxton burgesses would ask what right the Council had to enter into com- m petition with private traders,” so ■ it may be as well to touch lightly jj on this point. It would be just as logical to question the "right” of John Jones, a burgess of Foxton, to start, say, a new store because James Smith of the same borough already had a similar business running. The municipality consisting of all the citizens, Jones, a member of that municipality, should not be allowed to compete with an established business if you carry this so-called argument out to its final issue. Taken right to its logical conclusion (to put the matter in a concrete and personal form), if the Foxton municipality has no “ right ” to compete with, and is therefore fostering private trading, it has equally no “ right ” to assist in the floatation of a nejw company whose aim would be inimical to existing purveyors of the same article. That is to say, that the municipality should do its utmost to bolster up monopolies ! Could anything be more absurd? The municipality has every right to invest its money in any way which will benefit the majority of the citizens. In speaking of municipal trading as a success, it is curious to note how it compares with private enterprise engaged on the same lines. The two things start off with avowedly different goals. The municipality says, “ We will do such a tning in such a way as to give a benefit to the majority of the citizens,” and, incidentally, it makes a small profit. The private trader, on the other hand, starts off to make as large a profit as possible, and, incidentally also, he benefits to a small extent a few of the citizens. It is this strenuous pursuit of profits that makes the private trader such a ghastly unsuccess when compared with the municipality whose ultimate aim is necessarily the public welfare. If a profit can be made in addition to doing this, well and good. If not, then the increased conveniences accruing from the arrangement have to be taken into account when considering the question. It will be readily acknowledged by all supporters of municipal trading that it is possible for a municipality to make actual cash losses —that is, supposing that the municipality is incompetent or unbusinesslike. The same thing, of course, applies to private enterprise. A very interesting English parliamentary return was issued, which gave particulars of the most important undertakings in English and Welsh municipal boroughs. The j total capital invested in these was J £121,172,132. The average annual income was £13,040,711. The average anuual working expenses were ,£8,228,706. That is to say, the net annual profit was ,£4,812,005. Interest to stockholders accounted for £2,^75,906, and £1,264,544 went to sinking fund, in which way i6j£ out of the 121 millions had already been repaid. Thus, in a few years, the undertakings will belong to the respective municipalities who, having their plant clear, will be able to make the different services cheaper. , Under private management the V charges lor the different services would have been heavier; the services less efficient: and the profits would have gone into the pockets of a small section of the comnj-Mity. A favourite pose of

municipal trading is to be in favour of the municipality handling any mortal thing except what is being iasked for at the moment. “We ibeleive in municipal gas, water, tramways, etc., but as for a municipal coal yard—well it’s not within the sphere of practical ■olitics.” Here are a few in■ances, extending to much more B’ikely things than coal yards, Hi'c.h are managed by some

K* nicipalities, and which all show K sh profit : —Battersea, muniP . social club ; Bradford, muniIk .» hotel ; Bournemouth, muni--1 golf links; Colchester muni- £ 1 oyster, fishery; Doncaster, icipal racecourse ; Hull, municrematorium ; Harrogate, cipal fireworks ; St. Helens, d milk depot; Torquay, ' ’ warren ; West .'■i 1 paving stone . jester, municipal . f mways, abbatoirs, shares, gas and waterworks ; ;ow, municipal trams, gas, r, abbatoirs, market, farm, • aries, art galleries, parks, ntals, ambulance, old clothes et. But no, a municipal coal for Foxton is “ outside the e of S practical politics.” le municipality has no right to pete with private enterprise,” another ! “If the State can’t a depot pay, how can the ■,cil ?” says a third ! Luckily is, the private trader does not •arently!), like the Council, dividends. A new company eady on the ground to help ,y Foxton with coal, despite pp flliug facts that the State is

*ed to be unable to make a * r t pay here, and that the ’ icil are afraid to try ! But aps the shareholders in the proposition are like the ~iK is, content to do “all for love nd nothing for reward.’’ Even .30, with the varied examples given by the “ Foxtons of a larger growth ” shown above, one would imagine that such a small thing as l coal depot would be within even e obviously limited capabilities ... this municipality. —I am, etc., Lux,