The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1895-03-01
WHAT THE FIGURES SAY.

WHAT THE FIGURES SAY.
The Reuieoo editor Friday night took
nearly a column and half in an at
tempt to reply to the FREE PRESS
editorial of the evening previous upon
the city lighting question, and does
considerable figuring to show that it
is correct ia it's premises and the FREE
PRESS wrong. The ReUieao's article
would no doubt be important if it
were correct, but being based wholly
upon wrong premise, it is therefore
devoid of the Importance which other
wise might be attached to it..
After his customary personal attack
upon the editor of the FREE PRESS,
which was wholly unwarranted by the
facts in the case, the ReUieW editor
proceeds to befog the public mind by
a lot of figures which are wholly mis-
leading. In the first place, the Reuieao
bases it's figures wholly upon the arc
lights in use, and pays no attention
whatever to the 66 incandescent
lights which are also used. This is
manifestly unfair, and renders his
figures perfectly valueless. In the
second place, the ReUiea0 figures the
difference between 1900 and 1000
candle power at $40 per lamp. The
company in submitting the PROPOSE
tion to the city made only difference
of $40 between 1900 and 1000 candle
| power lamps.
| Again, our friend down the street
seems to figure on the basis that a
small amount of any article can be
furnished just as cheaply in proper
ton as it can when furnished in a
larger quantity, which is not the case
in any kind of business. And SO
figuring upon this mistaken basis, it
attempts to show that the new con-
tract will cost the city 81 per cent.
more for the candle power light than
it is paying under the present con-
tract.
Now what are the facts. The city
now has A arc lamps of 1000 candle
power costing $115 per annum, or a
total of $4,000 arc candle power, cost
| ing $4,000. 1t further has sc incan-
descents of 80 candle power, costing
$50 each per annum, or total of liz
incandescent candle power at cost of
ST. $3.50, making the total candle power
used by the city 80, l12, at a total cost
of S7,O4O, or 7.8 cents per candle.
The new contract calls for 100 lamps
of 1900 candle power at a cost of S75
per lamp per year, or total of 120, 900
candle power at cost OF $500, or 6f
cents per candle, making reduction
of over II cents per candle poWer-a
decrease in price of 20 per cent. and
an increase in candle power of 335 per
cent. The new contract increases
the total amount of light nearly 30, 900
candle power at an increased cost OF
only $3.50, or II cents per candle
power.
The Light company in submitting
their first proposition to the council
offered to furnish 1000 candle power
lamps for S95, a reduction of $40 per
lamp on the present contract, or in
candle power would equal AZ cents per
candle, reduction in the price of arc
candle power of one cent.
The city is now using 66 lamps Of
80 candle power, IL total OF 2, III candle
power, costing the city 1880 per
year. Under the new contract, 81 $50
would pay for twenty-six 1900 candle
power lamps. an increase in candle
power light from Pip to $1,000, or
more than IL times as much light for
the same amount of money. If this
is a bad, extravaganza move, will the
Reuieao bring it's philosophical powers
to bear upon it and show where it is?
In private life shrewd business men
would jump to make such an adj
vantageous change. Why, then, is
not such a business move good thing
for the city?
When the people come to fully
understand what they will get under
the new contract, as compared with
the old one, and the advantage which
is gained in price, we believe they
will commend the council for the
manner in which it has looked after
their interests, and they will also rec
! ognize the manifest unfairness of the