The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-04-03
COMMUNICATIONS.
Lfcht in Wa1linrford.

To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
 Will you kindly allow me to make
 a few comments on the effusion of your
 Wallingford correspondent,
 In the first place, your correspondent
 attacks the committee for not en-
 Tightening their followers on the ques-
 tion of cost and in the next breath
 exclaims that it will be important if
 the time ever comes for the question
 of cost. I think the writer of the ar ticle in question is a great deal more l interested in the question of indemnity l to the Gas company than of expense | to the taxpayers of the borough. If l the gentleman thinks the committee is l afraid to ventilate the subject of cost | he is very much mistaken, and can
 assure all those opposed to this project l that the more they stir the matter of cost and expense the easier it will be l for the people to get what are their | just rights Your correspondent says the question of cost would doubtless dampen the ardor of the three hundred and twenty or so who were so eager on the ques- tion. The number named, and a great
 many more are, and have been, much disappointed with the gas service which, considering it's cost to the bor- ough, is exceptionally poor. We can run an arc light of fifteen hundred candle power for what it costs for one of those "glow worm gas lights"
 He continues: "The committee, through the press, made the outside world believe that there is almost unan- imous demand of the citizens and tax payers for electric lights to be con ducted by the borough" The citizens certainly do not want them, if con ducted by anyone else. Oh no, we have had too much experience. Once bitten, twice shy, the old adage has 1t. In re- gard to the thousand opposed to this project I don't believe the writer re- ferred to above could name twenty five taxpayers in the borough that are opposed to it. And is not this mar vellous that the men most opposed to the borough is our borough attorney, and our representatives. What posi- ton for these men to occupy. I heard our borough attorney speak recently in one of our borough meetings of the 6AC6SSPNt SdIl Ol A CeIldiH ltluiNluudl. I don't know what the opinion is of those outside of our town who are watching with interest the peoples fight for their just rights, but if they should express their ideas, their lan- guage would undoubtedly include some thing as expressive as "gall'' for the opposition.
 Now, as to the question of cost, I wish to say that Dunkirk, New York, has fifty-five arc lights that run all night at a cost per annum of $36.5O, and Ypsalanti, Michigan, has eighty arc lights which run until midnight, at a cost per annum of $23.61, and that there are a great many others that I can name, if need be, that compare very favorably with the above. I name another, with cost of plant. Paris, Illi- nois, has sixty lights of 2,000 candle power, which runs nine hours per night | at a yearly cost of $25 per light Cost of plant, $10,000 Please bear in mind | that this plant was put in several years ago, and could be put in cheaper now.
 The peoples committee should not be l ashamed to make such figures known | at such rates. Would it not be economy l to put in such a plant and do away | with our present imperfect and expen- l sive system of semi-lighting. Your | scribe refers to the personal interest of | the committee and I am glad he speaks | of it for there is no doubt but the | committee is individually interested. | Perhaps your correspondent would like | to have said pecuniary interest. If so, I hope we shall hear from him again. |
 c. w. WOODHOUSE, A member of the Peoples Committee.