The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1891-08-29
NPE6IyR, WIS.,. SATURDAY. AUG. %. 1891.
Figures OF Interest to Superior.
From the Daily Leader.

The Chicago Times IN a well con-
sidered article urging the extension OF
that city's electric lighting plant gives
some figures which The Leader takes
the liberty of commencing to the at
tention and careful consideration OF
the gentlemen who constitute the
common council of the City OF Superior.
That most Of these figures are taken
from statistics of American cities by
the census bureau, Is a fact which may
or NAV not create a doubt Of their ac-
cu:acy, but however that may be they
certainly make an extraordinary show
ing in regard to public lighting. They
show that the cost of each gas lamp
varies from $50 in New Orleans, s23. So
in San Francisco, and $37 in st. Louis
to So in Indianapolis and Canton
$3.50 in Minneapolis, and $3.50 in
Uoboken. The annual cost of each
electric lamp varies from Si50.67 III
San Francisco, and s237 20 in Boston
TO s5s. 46 in Denver and SOS in Chicago.
The total number of lamps, gas and
electric i'm New York, where 80 miles
of streets are lighted, is 26,97S; in
Chicago, where 2,OiS miles are lighted,
the total is 32,793. The annual cost
In New York is S6l9, 2l7, in Chicago
s6iO,7S4.
Here is wide discrepancy as to the
cost of electric lighting for which it
will be difficult to find any honest, and
ut the same time satisfactory explain
alton. The difference III the cost of
coal will no more explain the wide dl-
yercence in the annual cost of an
electric street lamp, as between san
Francisco and Denver, then it VIII
answer the same purpose i'll explaining
why Superior should pay more than
twice as much per lamp as Chicago.
The Leader is not informed as to the
facts IN relation to SanFranclsco ard
Denver, but ventures the guess that
an inquiry will reveal that III
the one instance the city does its
own lighting, while the other la
bours under the disadvantage OF being
supplied by private corporation hold
ing a franchise similar to that in vogue
here in Superior. That is certainly the
way the matter stands as bt tween Chi
cago and Superior, and in their case
fully explains the situation, since there
can be no earthly reason why the an
nual cost of maintaining an electric
lamp should be more III the small than
in the large city.
The Times suggest, however, that
the figures given by the Chicago de
partment of public works, being UP to
the close of 1890, are later and there
fore more valuable than those Of he
Census report. The cost of lighting in
1890 was *6S3 ,94l; oil lamps. $l0i,6S7;
gasoline, SAL ssh maintaining electric
lights $37,3i5. Chicago buys It's gas
from monoroly; its ell ectric system
is wholy its own. At the close of last
wear the city had 800 arc lights, the
cost of which was SCI 200; these We're
of 1000 candle power, and the gas
lights of twenty candle power, which
they supplanted cost s72,ie0. Accord
ing to the report alluded to, the cost
per candle power for arc lights was
cents; for gas lights 81.
If tue foregoing figures are within
thousand miles of accuracy, they tell a
story of municipal lighting, the moral
Of which IS plain. The city that pays
more than twice as much per lamp rs
Chicago, nearly three times as much
as Denver, for electric lighting, no
matter how small that city may be, is
either willing or unwillingly, Willingly
or unwittingly, being robbed, as every
man of ordinary intelligence must
know The cost of maintaining arc
lights in the great city of Chicago last
year was only,S27 $50, against nearly,
if not greater. half the amount paid in
Superior for the seven months ending
Aug l, 1891 And be it remembered
Chicago had 900 lamps, Superior less
than 200
But lest it be argued that the com
parison with Chicago is an unfair one,
let us look at cities nearer our own
size which own and operate their own
plants. Marquette, a CITY OF about
10000 people put III 4 plant of its own
about two years ago, and besides light
ING Tie streets furnishes electric light
To private consumers. The result is
that the, city gets for nothing that
which under our system would cost 1t
fifteen or twenty thousand dollars. and
is making. with plant as vet insult
iicient to the wants of private users, 4
handsome profit over running eNp"ns
es construction account and interest
charges. In other words, ii saved the
immmense sum. which under our SyS
TEN it would have been compelled K
pay private corporation for lighting
It's streets, furnishes its citizens Will
cheap light, and from the earning:
will, III less time than The bonds
from the proceeds OF which the plant
was constructed, have to run. pay theil
whole cost and he enabled to furnish i.
still cheaper light to private users.
In Seattle we have another cas-.
where a city gets its light for nothing
and though charging but moderat,
price to private consumers is making
its plant pay for itself. The Statement
of the Seattle board of public work
Is to the effect that its electric plan
will make 4 profit of S45,oeo in the frs
twelve months of lis ownership by III,
city. over and above the cost of main
tenance and payment Of interest OF
bonds.
Wfrat these two last cities are dom!
superior can do The question Is hoy
To rid herself of a monopoly for the ex
sStence of which she has herself alon