The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-04-20

iiilS anu the city council Will not de-
pend entirely on the report of Electrician
Mckay in regard to the Feasibility of
municipal street lighting, but will do
little independent investigation and in
Quiry for themselves. 1t may be, as Mr..
Mckay says, that the best class of con-
sulting engineers are adverse to the gen.
eral principle of public ownership" Most
OF these gentlemen are in the employ of
private corporations, and their interest
lies in the direction of private ownership.
deny emphatically that the engineers
and officials connected with the most
successful municipal lighting plants in
TINS country express serious doubts as to
the advisability of the plan.'
OF the 200 and more cities in the United
States operating their own electric plant,
all but very few report the plan as suc-
cessful. OF sixty-five cities lit by private
companies that were examined by an
Evansville committee only eight an
swered No to the question, SHOULD
cities do their own lighring?" Thirty-six
answered emphatically in favor of public
ownership.
Mayor Stuart, Mayor Warwick and
many prominent officers of Philadelphia
favor public ownership, and well they
may. as the city is paying private COM
panies $3.50 per arc to light the city. AL
legheny, in the same state, lights 3,OVO
public irlcandescents and $40 street arcs
with municipal plant. The superinten-
dent estimates the arcs at $7S per year,
which includes interest.
In Boston a committee of the council
reported last October unanimously in ia
vor of a public plant for that city. they
visited ten cities east and west. Their
study of Chicago leu them TO the conc4u-
SION that when the city puts its four
plants into full operation the cost will be
reduced to $50, even with eight-hour labor
at good pay They discovered that Bloom
cd 1rhi in five va n
pay for its plant. The committee make
the further statement that since 1882 l3os-
ton has paid private corporations $2l2o,UOO
for services which would have cost but
SS00000 under public ownership.
There are several reasons why plant
owned by the city can furnish light
cheaper than can a private company II
pays no dividends on watered stock. II
pays no dividends on actual investment.
It does not have to retain lawyers or lob.
byists or provide for the entertainment OF
councilmen, or subscribe TO campaign
funds, or bear the expenses OF pushing
the nomination and election of men to
protect its interests, or give it new PRIV
ileces, or pay blackmail to ward off the
raids of cunning legislators ana oInclais,
or buy up its rivals, organized 70 De
bought out. 1t does not nave 10 auVef-
tise or solicit business. 80
A public plant can be combined with
other departments OF the service. Ine
mayor of Dunkirk says: our city owns
IL
comes from the city's owning ana operat-
ing both plants No extra labor Is re-
CURED but a lineman. The same en-
gineers, firemen and superintendent 9pel-
ate both plants" 1t is the same In Ban
gor and Marshalltown. In La sane tne
fire, water and light departments are CON
solidated- ,...oxor. 70
nav wen if the people do not own the
capital but borrow it, they can get L at
a much lower rate than private COM
panies have to pay.
A consolidated public plant can produce
light at a lower cost than is possible TO
a private company with equal efnclency OF
mana cement, equally good construction
and an equal volume of business.
The few cases in which municipal man,
agement is not as successful as 1t should
be are due to bad management or poor
construction or both. The management
may be bad because it is hampereo by
politics. .
the hands of a private corporation is
much greates cause of municipal corrup-
ton than where it is done by the cry.
1t is so of all public monopoiles. In Salt
Lake we have had some jobbery In our
water department, but nothing serious.
The service has always been efnclent ana
if unfair charges have been MADE they
were quickly corrected. But now mas 1t
been with our light companies? The very
first step towards private supply OF
light was job. The company got hold
of the city gas stock at a figure that
convinced nearly every one that the city
officers who made the deal made hand
somely by it. How much the street
railway and the light companies have had
to pay for favorable franchises and to
defeat obnoxious ordinances will never
be known, but no one who has followed
events the past six or eight years car be-
lieve that these companies have not exer-
cised a corrupting influence on our city
councils.
~ liz .-;t,
in Boston, New York, Brooklyn Philsldel-
phia Chicago, Minneapolis and other
large cities, and largely accounts for the
decisions made in these cities as reported
cipal ownership scheme" Northampton
lately decided that public ownership
would be unwise'' for that city. 1t was
afterwards discovered that all the city
government from mayor down, we're
holders of stock in the electric lighting
company.
In Michigan City public ownership was
crippled and finally destroyed by the
scheming of private company. The
moral is that if a private company owns
the government or the officers in charge
of the light plant it can nullify the bene-
fits of public ownership. But fortunately
there are few such cases, the result gen
orally being that good government has
been developed and strengthened through
the increased interest taken by the people
in municipal affairs in consequence of
their increased magnitude and import
ance.
And now a few words as to the cost
of erecting and operating street light
ing plant. do not claim to be an expert
electrician or mechanical engineer, but
there is plenty of data from which any
man of ordinary intelligence can matte
estimates which need not be very far
wrong.
According to a number of recently pub
lished estimates a modern street lighting
10
foot block at a cost per arc of $25 for
dynamos, S25 for the lamp, $50 to SAC for
wire and poles-put it $50 for Salt Lake
and $50 for miscellaneous This Il; an
investment of S120 per arc without the
real estate or power. For a 300 acs rlant
this would mean an investment of S3s O0O
A steam plant would mean $50 per arc
more, bringing the total UP to -S5i. COZ for
an installed plant of 300 arc capacity, or
$40 per arc. The average cost per arc
OF fourteen public plants in which there
was no combination with other works and
no lights sold, was S1S3, but have made
for the Salt Lake plant, presuming it
TO be located on city land Neither have
l figured in any commissions to electrical
experts or junketing trips by council
expenses and depreciation on snch a
plant? Combining the electric light de-
partment with the water department. and
taking the figures of a urge number of
liar to what exist here l find the entire
operating expenses would average s54 Der
arc per year. Admit that 1 am away off
in my calculations, $50 would certainly
cover everything. This makes about
$40, 600 per year for what we have been
paying SIS, 600 and for which the company
now wants S35, 900. The city would pav for
its plant in less than seven years by the
saving over what it has been paying and
in less than four years at the rate the
company now wants. and the city would
have a plant of 306 light capacity II the
city would utilize the water power of City