The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1895-01-03
To The Pilot.


| In communication in tn last Pilot tn
writer attempts to disprove the com
ments made by that paper that the offe
OF the E. l.. &c. is very fair oue." The
proposition referred to was:-That the
f, L. Co. proposed to let the city operate
the plant,-the city to pay nothing fol
1t, be liable for nothing, only in so far
that at the end of each year. the stock.
| holders should first receive 6 per cent.
out of the profits, and if there should be
| no profits they would receive nothing,
| that all above these profits should be
given IN stock of the E. L. Co. to the
city till all of the $4,000 stock has been
| earned. In this manner the city would
have acquired the sole ownership wholly
out Of the profits. This The Pilot thought
to be fair proposition, and which the
writer Of that communication tries to dis
prove by saying that the experts report
says that the city could build plant
twice os large as ours for S37,000-This
- wrong. L he IdcGS are.
LIST. That this experts report does not
say the estimated plant is twice as large
as ours, but that his estimate is only for
1900 light plant.
End. That the estimated cost of a
5000 light plant is not $4,000 but is
S37,9S3C0,
Ia this estimate he did not include the
real estate, nor the lamps in houses of
which we have wired at our expense over
1920 lamps costing US over $1,000, all of
which must be added in order TO get at
It's comparative cost. Our plant has a
dynamo capacity of 1920 amperes and
as each 1G c. 2. lamp requires 44100 of
an ampere, this makes total of 2,545 Is
Z. Z. lamp capacity and is only 455 Is
Z. L. lamp less than the estimated 5000
lamp plant. Besides this we all know
that estimated costs ever SO carefully
made, will invariably overrun the esti-
mate, especially when the best work is
desired.
Our plants main wires for the private
light system, are extra heavy, enabling
them TO carry twice the number Of lights,
by small addition, and the power at
our disposal Is double our present re-
quirement, therefor, with an outlay of
about $1,000 for electrical machinery our
plant would be of about 5000 light ca
pacity.
The main proof of the value of our
plant is the fact that after years opera
tioL it has proved TO be reliable, safe, can
be and has been cheaply operated, and
has furnished light cheaper than any
other plant under like conditions, and
earned fair profit. These assertions
can prove by comparisons.
Any person who attempts to create an
impression that any of my propositions
are unfair must be either ignorant of the
facts in the case, blindly prejudiced or
bitter enemy of the E. l.. Co. Now let
us, review the propositions in their order
and see if either of them could be con-
strued as being unfair
Tbs 1st offer was to contract for street
lamps at $500 for 16 G. z. per year and
So 90 for - G. P. per year. 100 extra if
strung across street.
The End offer was to turn the plant
over to the city as stipulated in fran
chise, that is at actual cost less reason
able wear and tear.
The Bird offers to enable the city to ac-
quire the sole ownership of the plant,
from the net profits only, without pay
ing anything for it out OF the city treas
ury.
No person-would ever think of build
ing plant with the Intention of parting
with it after years when the most crlti-
cal stage was over and it becoming most
productive. Although we do not ex-
pect, that our unusual proposition,
should not be discussed pro and con but
should think, that after due deliberation
it ought to be accepted as a square and
fair business proposition for all parties
JOHN SCHUETTE,
President E. L. Co.