Lower Domestic Rates!
| Author | Henry T. Hunt |
| Published date | 01 January 1932 |
| Date | 01 January 1932 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/000271623215900109 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
62
Lower
Domestic
Rates!
By
HENRY
T.
HUNT
TO
DETERMINE
and
put
into
effect
a
policy
which
will
aid
the
American
family
and
home
against
disruptive
forces
seems
to
be
demanded
by
the
present
situation.
This
means
dislodgment
of
the
cult
which
prevailed
from
1920
to
the
stock-market
crash
of
October
1929,
to
wit
that
big
busi-
ness
should
not
only
be
given
a
free
hand
to
exploit
consumers,
but
that
government
should
aid
it
in
all
possible
ways.
Accordingly,
Federal
and,
in
general,
state
administration
has
lav-
ished
upon
business,
privileges
and
immunities,
such
as
the
tariff,
nullifica-
tion
of
the
anti-trust
laws,
monopoly
of
the
air,
and
discrimination
and
pref-
erence
in
the
price
of
electric
current.
Other
speakers
have
elaborated
on
the
extent
and
the
burden
on
the
family
of
that
discrimination.
It
is
enough
to
say
here that
the
home
pays
from
five
to
ten
times
as
much
per
unit
as
busi-
ness,
that
the
home
uses
less
than
one
fifth
of
the
current
but
pays
three
fifths
of
the
expense
of
providing
and
main-
taining
the
plant
and
service,
and
that
differences
in
distribution
and
other
costs
warrant
no
such
differential.
It
has
been
made
clear,
also,
that
as
to
domestic
consumers
a
monopolistic
price
can
be
and
is
exacted,
except
in
those
few
localities
where
neighboring
municipal
plants
exert
an
influence,
whereas
the
price
charged
the
com-
mercial
and
industrial
user
is
controlled
by
his
ability
to
establish
his
own
plant
-an
alternative
not
available
to
the
domestic
consumer.
RELIEF
THROUGH
GOVERNMENT
COMPETITION
There
is
division
as
to
means
of
relief.
Congress
is
determined
to
regu-
late
the
electric
monopoly
by
govern-
ment
competition.
To
that
end,
it
has
twice
passed
a
Muscle
Shoals
bill,
and
doubtless
will
do
so
again.
California,
Washington,
and
Nebraska
have
re-
cently
passed
legislation
to
extend
their
already
flourishing
municipal
ownership.
New
York
has
established
a
Power
Authority
to
handle
the
St.
Lawrence
River
hydroelectric
project
and
to
sell
its
output,
if
possible
through
contracts
with
the
distributing
companies
on
such
terms
as
will
reduce
its
price
to
the
consumer.
It
is
clear
that
a
number
of
states,
stimulated
by
the
success
of
the
Ontario
Hydro-Elec-
tric
Commission,
will
soon
enact
legisla-
tion
to
produce
or
purchase
current
at
wholesale
and
arrange
its
retailing
at
a
reduced
price,
either
through
municipal
plants
or
by
means
of
contracts
with
private
distributing
companies.
But
it
is
obvious
that
the
foregoing
are
long-time
projects.
The
working
out
of
the
political,
legal,
financial,
and
engineering
details
will
require
decades.
Furthermore,
the
opposition
of
the
industry
is
not
to
be
despised.
It
has
the
sympathy
and
the
aid
of
the
Presi-
dent
of
the
United
States,
of
the
great
banks
and
investment
houses,
of
the
insurance
companies,
of
the
press
with
a
few
exceptions,
and
of
that
portion
of
the
public
which
has
invested
in
utility
securities
at
prices
based
on
a
monop-
oly
of
the
domestic
market.
These
are
massive
forces
which
will
be
able
to
hinder,
although
not
ultimately
to
defeat,
the
breakdown
of
the
electric
monopoly.
UTILIZE
EXISTING
MEANS
OF
RELIEF
Under
such
circumstances,
it
is
pru-
dent
to
apply
a
portion
of
our
thought
To continue reading
Request your trial