29
out in private hands but eventually the states and provinces assumed a dominant
role in the regulation of those utilities that remained in private hands. As the state
and provincial role gradually expanded, municipal powers were delegated from
state and provincial governments in the United Stated and Canada, allowing the
states and provinces to determine the types of utilities their cities can franchise
and the aspects of company performance the cities can regulate. Early-nineteenth-
century North America had a strong tradition of decentralized government,
however, and state and provincial legislatures were generally reluctant to get
embroiled in the details of awarding local franchises. States and provinces took
the lead in chartering and regulating the infrastructure that crossed municipal
boundaries or provided intercity service, such as canals and steam railways. They
let their cities take the lead in regulating utilities whose services were largely
local and involved the occupation of city streets.
55. From the beginning, however, state government remained available as a court of
appeal or mediator if either a city or a private franchise holder felt it was being
treated too unfairly. In essence, the option of appealing to the state introduced an
element of discretion in the otherwise contractual approach. And although that
appeal was cumbersome to exercise, it was called on increasingly as the
nineteenth century wore on and disputes between cities and franchise holders
became more common. The spread of formerly local utilities across city
boundaries at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth
centuries added pressure for state intervention. Responsibility was moved to the
state level because many turn-of-the-century reformers argued that municipalities
Convention