Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-08-01
IhA Gnsl Of lifx Ga.

TO the Editor CT the Dispatch:
At recent meeting Of one OF the Council
committees a proposition OF the Electric
Light Company was consideTed, Offering 10
light the streets by system Of towers, dis.
pensIug with gas lamps. Representatives OF
the Electric-Light Company appeared urging
the merits OF their scheme and claiming that
It would cost the city less than gas. No one
appeared in behalf Of the s-works, snd the
committee. satisfied by the er.p0rte statement,
decided unanimously In favor Of the Electric
Light Company's proposition. The state
ments OF the Electric Light Company were
published, and having a painful conviction
that the city was at a disadvantage in this
competition for lack OF orreetlnformation 90
the subject, undertook 10 prepare q careful
statement OF the cost Of gas for 1887. The
data were derived from the Auditors Office
and Superintendent OF tue Gas-Works, and
published in tabular form in your issue Of
Sunday last for general information. And
now comes Mr.. A. PiZZini, Jr., secretacV
OF the Electric-Light Company, In your issue
OF to-day, crIticsing my statement a. follows:
" Its (the electric light exravagance as
shown by you Informant in sundays issue
by his statement showing tue cost OF gas for
1887, in which be compares the cost Of gas
aud electric light. TbIs objection IL
answered by showing that your informant
who prepared the statement has either de-
signedly or from ignorance (and It is hoped
from the latter) endeayored 10 mlslead the
public" And be proceeds 70 show II thus:
- Every manufacturer adds interest on bis
plant and certain percentage Tor Its wear
and tear TO the cost OF their products" &c.
! answer tins is not the practice at all.
Repairs are made from time 20 time as re-
g,,tr nd fh.,r "a I'M In hl
ming up, as IN the present statement. No
manufacturer reckons interest as part OF
the cost OF manufacture. 1t appears in tine
| return or profit derived from his investment.
| And further, 10 comparing the cost 0i electric
| light and gas Interest on the plant should not
! be reekoned, because II is a fixed charge to
| the city, and has to be borne whether the city
| Yields to the Electric Company one fourth or
one half or the whole OF It's lighting.
l have shown thus that Mr.. Pizzini has
pointed out no error ia the statement be
criticises so ntemperately, and that for the
| lighting now Done the cost OF $4,000 10
( 100000 per annum for the electric rs COM
pared with $1,000 for gas Is correct, the
present cost OF the street.lamps being with
| 10 S25 each per annum.
And now leave it 10 my fellow.citizens
| 10 decide who ii Il that is attempting.
'eluer ueeisucu9 W Li"ukh i<hViaucc, ~
mislead the public" the secretary OF the
| Electric Light Company, who Is seektsg bv
all the winning methods known 10 us mso-
agement 10 fasien ppon the city At great
sun, to be raised by increased taxation, this
fanciful scheme for lighting oy towers, else
| where condemned. or the private citizea
who, having no other motive than tue pub
| lie good, is seeking TO give correct informs-
ton on the subject 10 his iellow-citizeus.
Very respectfully. y. 4. GLASGOW.