Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1889-03-09

1AaA
UGz1t9
AZ Il determined 10 cap fhe climax f0r
antagonism % Butts interea1s. - City
Council . NOW engaetd In N s1Et =
give poorer lights dian eFa- hxrd
tax. probably. but one fhat en- = -
complished BY perserse persistence
Why does not the Council 30 q mis-
business Of city lighting Tie sams . de-
individual members would e asimiIar
matter Of their ownf Justice 10 Butteis
public as well q private interests dicfste
fl1af amy service that en- Do rendered tbs
city BY local concerns, should b given the
preferences, ether considerations being
any Where near equaL
Instead Of attempting 10 deal In . bust
nesslike manner with the lecal electric
light company. the Council GOES cruising
around among outside interests, ami
eagerly pounces upon . proposition whose
~veneering II sugar ID 30 thin that any
one ought to Be able 10 ZEE through il.
The Thomson Houston Company 1t ST.
Paul Gffers 10 furnish g arc lights ut
s14 per month, moonlight schedule the
same system Is in ass Ut Helena, BILL
ings, Bozenan, Missoula md Niles City.
Nothing IL said about the candle power
Of the light, except that Il b to be The
same a. those In use i'm the places named.
and those are LOO candle power.
The Butte company oilers to give the
same number Of lights, moonlight sched-
ule, for s1s per month, plainly specify
ing that each light shall be of 1000
|candle1poWer.
A comparison Of the two propositions
shows these facts: The Butte Brush
Light Company offers to furnish % lights
OF 1000 c~andIe-p0wer each, q total OF
5000 candle-power per night; the st.
Paul Company offers to furnish % lights
of LOO candle power, . total Of 3lJSO.
candle power . might, making q differ
ence of 1880 candIe-power In favor OF
the Butte company.
Now, why does not the Council put
these companies on an equal footing ?
Why NOT require each to specify the
quantity and quality Of light to be sup
piled? Perhaps the Butte company
would furnish the 100 c~andle-power at
just as low q figure a that given by the
st. Paul company. And IL 30, why mot
give the local concern the preference?
Last year it was promised that the peO-
pie OF Butte were to be given better ser
vices i'm the way Of lighting. water, sew
erage, etc. The people were taxed for
fhat purpose, but the promises have not
been kept. Instead oil extending the
benefits supposed to accrue from being
included In the city limits, 1t is now
actually proposed to curtail the sane
Instead Of more light, the Council pro-
poses to give less. A city the sire OF
Butte that attempts to light its streets
with rs lights, is attempting to economic
to the point of niggardliness- And
then, when the power Of those widely
separated 26 is to be reduced nearly one
half, the limit of public patience with
such ickpenny craftsmanship" is about
reached.
Butte needs more Light instead of less;
does not the Council know this2
To get more light, Butte must pay for
it. Does not the Council know this?
The proposition TO lessen the capacity
of the present lamps, ard to place no
additional ones oyer the city. il one of
the most egregious of the many blum
ders committed by the present reform"
Council and n which the suburbs of
Butte should strongly resent. Butte Is
now the poorest lighted city I'm the North
west, and the people should Indignantly
assail the parsinlonions efforts of the
Council to give q still feebler lighting
service.