STONE & WEBSTER

JOURNAL

JUNE, 1918

EDITORIAL COMMENT

Mr. Eliot Wadsworth's account of Red Cross work in the war zone, which will be found elsewhere in this issue, is just the kind of story regarding the Red Cross which most of us have for a long time desired. In a large and general way we are all now fairly familiar with the scope and methods of this most beneficent institution, but our knowledge has perhaps lacked the poignancy necessary to its highest effectiveness. Mr. Wadsworth, in the present remarks and in others which he has made since his return from the war zone a few weeks ago, imparts that quality to them. Our interest is kindled to a very high point, our sympathies are profoundly stirred, we feel that no sacrifices which we may be called upon to make in order to alleviate the sufferings in the war zone can be too great. Mr. Wadsworth, in this informal description of what he saw on his recent trip, produces an effect upon the mind not unlike that produced by Henri Dunant, the real founder of the Red Cross, in "Un Sovevenir de Solferino." Though Mr. Wadsworth's terms are less harrowing than those employed by Dunant in describing the battle of Solferino in 1859, his pictures are scarcely less vivid. We can recall nothing written of the present war which gives so clear an idea of how a great army looks when going into and coming out of action. While there is here no account of any battle, we nevertheless acquire in no small degree the psychology of war. It could be wished that these words of Mr. Wadsworth might have a far wider circulation than we can give them, for they show us how the hundreds of millions of dollars which the American people have subscribed to the Red Cross are being spent, and show us with a vividness which almost makes us feel as if we

were participating in the distribution of relief in person instead of vicariously.

A Much Needed Work

The Harvard University Press has just brought out an exceptionally valuable work entitled "A Bibliography of Municipal Utility Regulation and Municipal Ownership," by Don Lorenzo Stevens. The philosophy of public utility regulation is in the making, and the structure is far from complete. It could not be otherwise. Practically none of our public utilities antedate the nineteenth century, and most of the more important of them have come into existence within the last thirty or forty years. As a matter of fact, it is only within the last fifteen or twenty years that there has been a widespread persistent effort to construct a policy for their regulation. This effort has not yet been productive of satisfactory results, and for obvious

reasons.

In the first place the effort has lacked authoritative leadership. The federal government, forty-eight state governments, innumerable municipal governments, have all aimed to have a directing voice in the matter. There has been a clash of localities, and a clash of interests. The different regulatory bodies have not always been in agreement in the matter of policy and practice. On the other hand there has arisen a great number of special writers on the subject of "public regulation," many of them mere doctrinaires, and many more mere empiricists. And back of these has been the general public, with no particular knowledge, either doctrinaire or experimental, of the subject, but merely filled with the idea that if the public utilities were not held in rigid restraint they would prove a menace to the community.

With all these different interests at work in the matter, and so often at cross purposes, it has been extremely difficult to create just standards by which to regulate public utilities. Courts and public service commissions, in adjudicating specific cases, have felt obliged, while formulating general rules of action, to make clear the fact that the last word on public utility regulation has not yet been uttered. This is notably the case in the Smyth vs. Ames decision, handed down by the United States Superior Court in 1898, one of the most frequently quoted of all the leading cases in public utility regulation. The Court, in an effort to define "Fair Value," enumerates everything it can think

of as entering into the meaning of that term and concludes by remarking, “We do not say that there may not be other matters to be regarded in estimating the value of the property;" which seems to furnish abundant opportunity for modifying the definition of "Fair Value."

With all this divergent and conflicting opinion hid away in court decisions, public service commission mandates, magazine articles, and books of limited circulation, it is difficult for even the most experienced investigators of public utility affairs to keep track of the essential literature of the subject. Such a bibliography as Mr. Stevens has at last compiled was badly needed and its advent will be gladly hailed.

Mr. Stevens is to be praised, not only for the exceedingly conscientious effort which characterizes his work, but also for the just balance and fine sense of proportion with which he has accomplished his task. He has personally read every work which he lists, which makes his annotations of special value. His judgment is attested by the fact that the works which he mentions comprise less than one-third of the material collected. The publication of the remainder, for the sake of completeness, he has thought inadvisable, since all the better works have been included. Careful investigation of his lists convinces us that he has omitted nothing whose absence will be felt.

Some years ago a distinguished Oxford professor wrote an article entitled "From Metaphysics to History," his aim being to show that no question can be considered settled if approached merely from the standpoint of metaphysics. In other words, it is necessary to know the historical facts which have given rise to and have developed the idea you are discussing. Now there is no realm of investigation to which this applies with greater force than the realm of public utilities. As a matter of fact, the historical data in connection with the rise and development of public utilities have too often been ignored by legislatures, courts, public service commissions, writers of books, magazinists, and the general public. Yet a voluminous literature exists in connection with the history of utilities and of regulation, as is attested by the fact that Mr. Stevens devotes 125 pages to this aspect alone and lists practically 900 productions. The same thoroughness characterizes Mr. Stevens' treatment of every other aspect of his subject, his list of publications on Public Service Commissions, comprising works on the theory and methods of the Commissions, but not their decisions and rulings,

covering 49 pages. Fifty-nine pages are devoted to "Valuations;" 53 pages to "Rates;" 70 pages to "Municipal Ownership."

Students of public utility conditions will find their task measurably lightened in the future by reason of Mr. Stevens' work, for he has not only presented the essential literature of each of the aspects in this great field of investigation, but has also employed a classification which makes easy the task of getting at the information. For example, under the caption "History of Utilities and Regulation" he has first a section devoted to "United States and Foreign," followed by sections, alphabetically arranged, on the various states and municipalities.

Where We Are Weakest

In urging drastic economy in the use of coal by domestic consumers, Fuel Administrator Garfield stated recently that there was not the slightest chance of producing coal for all needs. This statement apparently does not mean just what it seems to mean on the surface. It is true that the mines are producing much less coal than is necessary to meet the demand, but this is due to circumstances over which they have practically no control. We have before us the record of twenty mines for a particular day this month. If each of these mines had operated eight hours, the aggregate running time for the day would have been one hundred and sixty hours. As a matter of fact it was 86.25 hours. The fact that the mines were as a whole operated for not much more than half the normal number of hours is ascribed to one fact, the lack of railroad transportation.

Here is where the trouble in the coal situation lies. Despite the growing scarcity of labor, despite the increasing assertiveness of labor unions, and despite the draft, the coal mines would be able to keep the production measurably up to requirement were it not for the lack of transportation facilities. If the cars are not at the mines to receive the coal when it comes out of the ground, production is bound to cease. When, therefore, the country agitates itself over the growing inadequacy of the coal supply, it is really dealing with the railroad situation rather than the mining situation.

Now the railroad situation is admittedly a serious one. Though the mines are capable of extracting coal very much in excess of the present production, and possibly quite sufficient