The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-11-13
PROCEEDINGS or CITY COUNCIL.
(Omcial }
CITY CLERKS OFFICE,

CITY CLERK OFFICE,
WICHITA, Kan, Nov. II. 1894. ,
Council met in regular session, Mayor
Cox ia the chair aud all the colnciimeu
present except Minick.
Minutes read and approved.
A petition of c. {. Cushing to move two
frame buildings was on motion of Coun-
Gilman Burton referred to the marshal
aud fire committee with power to act.
The light COMMITTEES made the following
report. which was adopted.
TO the Honorable Mayor and City Council:
We, your lighting committee. TO whom
was referred the matter Of reducing the
IgGting expenses Of the city. as per your
resolutions. beg leave to Re port as fol o ~:
In accordance with said resolution. We
saw and negotiated with the representa-
tlves of the three lighting companies OF
this city. which companies are lighting the
city at this time, auu ma lie 10 said repre-
sentatives the proposition, rs We under
stood il. as laid down in the resolution, 10.
wit, on "A basis OF abont fifty per cent OF
the charges that are now made by said
lighting companies for lighting the city.
We were at first IN informed, by said repre-
sentatives of said lighting companies, that
they were ready to meet the city, IN Il spirit
OF fairness, and aid the city IN the redUc-
ton Of the lighting expenses OF the city,
and two of said representatives OF said
our proposition was not At all unreasOua-
BILE aud we We're led to believe that mat
tiers could amlcably be adjusted In fairness
TO the city aud also To the said lighting
companies but since said time said repre-
sentstives OF said lighting companies have
informed US that they could not negotiate
with Us any further. and We're unable 10
make any reductions III TIE Itentlog .. The
city. Whatever.
After lsbcrinc hard. a. we have in this
mstt-r. for u period Of weeks. aud after re-
ceiviBg considerable encouragement from
said lighting companies, such that We be-
lIeyed tt the time would lead 10 an an Ca
ble adjustment, IN fairness TO the ligbtIug
companies aud the city. We are now led 10
believe from thr stat -Inents OF the Repre-
seutstiyts Of said iighuug companies. that
10 amicAble adjasrmsnt can lie made. and
that whatever 5 doue will have TO be done
by legal process. Believing stiil. rs We do,
that tie Charges now made are unrrsSou-
able, aud unjust. We would. therefore,
recommend tasj the cliy 10 longer Tecos-
uize The charges m ade By the said light NJ
comp tnies, and 10 longer rec guizs aEy
Cb!gati on 10 said lighting computes. aud
that notice be given each Of s-id lighting
com panies thtt tue city no longer recoS-
Miss any obligation 10 said Company for
the lighting CT IAe city. sod that the light
iug com mlttee be Instructed - refrain aud
refuse 20 audit sny further accounts Of
said lighting company, aud that the
hUance committee be iustruc;ed 20 refrain
aud refuse TO allow shy further accounts
CT said lighting Com psuie~. uatiI farther
ordered By tie mayer and council
We would ;Crthsr recommend that 10
view % The f8ct that q wall be necessary
70 settle the differences bstS the c.ty
aud he said lighting compaIi=s By iegsl
process. AMI shai the eX7-nsr Q! tue same