The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1895-02-22
THE ELECTRIC LIGHT.

1t was too much to expect that our
neighbor of the Revieao would be in
any way satisfied with the settlement
of the electric light question by the
present council. Despite the advice
he gave the council against municipal
ownership, Mr.. Wise, now that that
body for once, at least, acted affirm
atively upon his suggestions, turns
upon the aldermen with his wonted
bitterness and charges them with in
fidelity to public interests and de-
liberate abuse and misuse of power.
His righteous" Indignation is more
assumed than real. 1t is we'll known
that he entertains very bitter per-
sonal dislike for Mr.. Hubbard, a mem
Der of the Electric Light company,
and his severe structures upon the ac-
tion Of the council in making a con-
tract for city lighting is not so much
because of the contract itself as it is
because of his dislike for Mr.. Hubbard
whom the ReUie,U has seen fit to Op-
pose in all his business efforts for the
past fifteen or more years, and prob
ably it will continue to misrepresent
him to the end. We do not believe
there is any sympathy existing in this
community for the position our con-
temporary has taken on the light
question. While the matter was
pending and being discussed the
senior editor of the ReUie,o was prac-
tically silent with his opposition.
In fact being called upon to eX-
press his views at conference
held between the Light company and
members of the council, Mr.. Wise
said that he sincerely hoped the coun-
Gil would under no consideration go
into commercial lighting, and he eX-
pressed himself as wholly against
municipal ownership at this time.
He said that the SS5 proposition was
in excess of what he had expected,
but believed that the council and
company could get together and ad-
just the differences on an equitable
basis. This having been done, and a
price established at much lower
figure than was expected, he now
takes the opportunity to file his dis
approval and to misrepresent facts.
There is no contract for ten years,
as the Revieac claims there is. There
is a franchise for ten years and con-
tract for five years. The Revieac
claims that this contract involves an
expenditure of about hundred
thousand dollars. Let us see just
what it does involve. The present
contract of five years will cost the
city just S37, 800. If this price should
continue for the succeeding five years
the total would foot up to SIS, 900, or
25 per cent. less than our indignant,
high moral neighbor claims. But if
we are permitted to judge the future
by the past, it is fair to assume that a
very considerable reduction will be
made from present contract price for
the last five years. The new contract
over the old one is reduction OF IL
per cent. If this same reduction shall
be made at the end of five years, the
second half of the franchise term
would cost the city $31 ,125, or a total
of S6S, 625 about 40 per cent. less
than the ReuieoU would have its readers
believe.
That the Republican city conven-
tion did endorse municipal ownership
of electric light is true to an extent,
but not to the extent that the ReuleU
tries to make out. The resolution
reads:
"This convention stands squarely
in favor of the city government using
all honorable mot favorable means to
endeavor to light the city by
electricity from a plant owned and op-
Grated by the city" Would it be honor
able for the city government, that is
already taxed to the extreme limit