Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1896-05-27
rHr MAYORS VETO.

ANNNNNWNNA INNNa N"tA ny ~"
furnish the city with electric lighiF
and 40 q consequences darkness vii
prevail Tor an indefinite period. In hl.
veto the Mayor givts ccrinin rcas3ni
for HE action, which on eurcricloI
examination may boem TO have some
force, bu, which on close tcfuliny must
be called pusriio and unsntis'nclory
In the fret place, be Gays that
the old company, with anti
quatod machinery, wac ablc ana
willing to furnish lamps Tor $500 n
month, and tha, the improved
facilities Of tho Big Cottonwood com
pany should give 10 cheaper 10 the
old company were willing Go do o.
the Mayor states, why were the
lights turned outG The only reply that
can be given shows that tho Mayor
does not state the fac, on that point
AZ 10 the ability 10 furnish the Hight
al the figure named, the reas1n the
old company gave ioT raising the price
10 slO.bO was that 70 could net afford
to contlnue al the lower price.
Tho Mayor goes on 20 say that
pf electricity cannot be supplied TO tho
consumers by water power nt les cost
than by steam, then there IL no COM
mufcial advantage IN developing that
water power" That is not business
logic; for n the c0sl were precisely tho
aame, there would still DO the conner.
oial advantage Of an increased power.
But that Is neither here nor there, eX'
copt 10 show the weak reasoning Of tho
message. The fact 10 that No far a. tho
offers to the city are concerned. the
supply Of electricity by water rover
came cheaper than that by steam. The
sioam rover company offered at $1,000
per month, and tho water power com.
pAny ht $3.50.
Recurring to the alleged willing
utis OF the old company 10 furnish
lights now At the lower prices suproio
that company has changed ~ mind,
why then discriminate agaiuet the
Big Cottonwood company to give the
other a chance 10 come IN agaiu2 The
public wants 10 know, ADD perhaps
may not have difficulty In finding
out.
Another point made by the Mayor IL
that n proposal was sent to the Council
to provide better service at lower
rate, but II was not brought officially
before the Council. The fact l. that no
such proposition was submitted by any
q mpany operating In the city or likely
to do % Ia tho near future. The
NEWS published tho facts relating
10 that oder, and II was a purely spec.
ulatiVo affair, the coming OF the com.
pany that made Il being contingent
upon getting tho contract. Tho rua-
ton this offer was not taken was be.
cause Of bath IT. uncertainty and
imprAo,icAbilily for lighting the city
at the present time.
As to the suggestion that st. Louis
gets light cheaper than this bid, 4, loses
nli IT. force In this city having been
utterly unable to get the light at the
price 81. Lauis pays. 10 We take u ai
nll, We must got u al the price for
which II h oblainable; 70 we could get
u At half the Iricu 80. Louis docs
70 would be our advantage, just o. tho
lmposaibility Of getting Il Tor the same
lguTo 10 our disadvantage.
The objection 20 a two.yenr contract
would have come force 70 a one.yeat
contract were within reach aud there
were certainly that by that time a
reduction In coat could bo secured.
But the experience Of tho very lalcst
contract entered into lie equally pH
strong the other way; and Ia the mean,
time We are without the light.
The provision for the chief Of the
ife department 10 be electric light 10.
epec,or may not be tho beet that car
DO done; but the Mayor himself,
earlier IN tho year, approved the
Councils action by which an electric
light inspector Ut cost Of S25 pei
month was dispensed with, Later there
waa proposition before the Council
to engage new inspector at $50 OF $50
ler month; ana naturally the history
Of this Transaction comes up IN conupC
ton with the reference Ia the message
By the way, with o proper register
The onlce Of electric light Inspector &,
about as useless an Eppendage Or IN,
city csn have, except 70 draw from 90
treasury about a thousand doIAr O
year
On tho lnal point tho mayor makes,
that sealed bids should be asked Got
ami be- considered In committee OF "a,
whole and not, az In this case, deal
with by subcommittee Of three mem
beB In secret session, no doubt On,
asking Of bids would enable parties e
try again after experiencing a repent
uuce that they did not bid cheaper las
tlmei aud perhapa the city would gain
That RENAME 10 be seen. But o.,
ltaiement that the former bids wuu
considered by subcommittee lu fu
erot session isa graluit7us insult TO
committee which 6to0d - 1sliul'y
between the people a. O. tho demand o.
the old llgnt company foT an increased
toll, and thereby saved the city thou