The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1889-03-14
The Other Side of the Electric Light
Question.


In your last issue Mr.. j. w. Holcomb
has a long article assailing the Gas Co. and
myself. l wish to say a few words in
regard to certain statements made by him.
He says ''Mr. Seymour said that 81 arcs
would not light the CITY," An actual test
has proven that statement true. The ques-
tion as to the effect of the shade trees cannot
be determined until summer. AT the next
meeting Mr.. Seymour was there s'with his
usual opposition" l was there (whatever
/ had with mel at the request of the Gas
Co. and made an offer on gas and takin,
care of the lights at a stated price. The
Council decided that electric lights would
be better for street lighting. That they
would continue gas to Jan. 1, 1889, and
asked for bids based on contract taking
effect on that date to wit, Jan. L, 1889.
Mr.. Stafford presented his bid. l asked
that acceptance might be delayed until the
next meeting, 'sand said the r. G. L. & C.
Co. would make the village proposition" !"
As to the unfairness of this request will
Co. that they might decide whether they
would go into the business. 1t would have
placed me in very unpleasant position
had l made a bid, the council accepted
acted as they thought best in not waiting
and no one has heard us complain On ac-
count of their action. / stated to Mr.
Stafford that in my judgment the contract
was void" That it was a correct Opin-
ion was later ON confirmed by our attorney
and now by Mr.. H0lcOmb and his attoi neys
In regard to the assignment of an alleged
duplicate of the contract entered into by
the village will say after the directors had
decided that the Thompson-Houston Co
system was the best, Mr.. Wadsworth, their
general agent, made the Gas Co. an offer on
the necessary electric machinery conditioned
upon our relieving his Co. from all respon-
sibility under contract made with the city
by Mr.. Stafford. After some negotiations
a bargain was closed and the contract
assigned. The exclusive right to use the
ThompsOn-HoustOn system in Ravenna
was given to our Co. Mr.. Holcomb pub
lished copy of contract, a part of which
is correct. Will only call your attention
to the part that is under controversy.
''It is further agreed that said second
party may have the privilege to purchase
said plant 1889, at the cost price of said
plant.-HOlcOmb'S Article.
1T is further agreed that said second
party may have the (eXcluSive) privilege
to purchase said plant (at any time during
the first three months after the first day of
April, A. D., 1880 at the cost price of said
plant (and that they may have access to all
books in the hands of either party to deter
mine what that cost price is)."
'"rhiS agreement or contract is for the
period of three years from the first of Jan
nary 1889.
j. w. HoLCoNIB, Mayor. TCorporationl
H. L. BEATTY, Clerk TSeal.1
THoMPsoN-HoUsToN Electric Co.
by t. j. STAFFORD, Agt."
The words in parentheSis are erased in
both contracts by drawing red line over
them excepting the figures 1889 in the dup
lieate held by the Mayor. If they were
not duplicates why did he not so state
when he examined it shortly after being
assigned to us? The fact is, they were
duplicates when drawn, when erasures
were made, through clerical error, the red |
line was not drawn through the figures !!
1889 in his contract. 1t shows on its face
an error. If the contract is legal then the
Company are bound by what would be
correct Interpretation as it now stands. |
On that basis would be willing to take
,ither, knowing that any court would say
hat the conditions were the same. For
myself will say, submit the two contracts
o three good lawyers and will abide by
heir decision. 1 do not think that any
member of the Gas Co will object to that
ffer. His next chargeis is that the execu-