The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-04-17

pany sl1ouldrraise the price for supply
ing the city with arc lights from $3.50
to $1,000 Per month. This simply shows
that the Salt Lake and Ogden Gas and
Electric Light company have a cinch
on the lighting business-whether it is
natural gas, artificial gas or electric
light. That they propose. to take ad-
vantage of the situation is also proved
by their extortion in other cases. In
stances are given where the company
offered to supply incandescent lights
for 20 cents per month, and after the
wires were in raised the price to 81
for a 10 o'clock service and $3.50 for
an all night service
| don't blame the company at
all for taking every advantage of
the situation. The company is
not a benevolent institution. It
was organized for the purpose of
paying dividends. If it can collect
S1-50 per month for so cents worth of
gas and get SO for a gas meter, that's
good business proposition. If it
can convince the people that natural
gas is played out and that consumers
are paying $3.50 for artificial gas, we
can easily see good dividend-paying
proposition in that plan. If they can
make the city pay them $1,000 instead
OF $500 1t means an. addition of be-
tween $4,000 and $1,000 per year to their
treasury. 1t isn't a question of the
cost of the service at all. The ques-
ton is, how high can the price be put
without reaching a point which en-
dangers monopoly of the business?
That the manager of the company
should endeavor to prove to the public
that their rates are reasonable and
that no other plan could supply a
cheaper light, is but natural. 1t would
be strange if they were not also pro-
Vided with figures to back UP their
assertions 1t is business, and that is
what the company is here for.
In his interview with The Herald,
Secretary Moffat is reported as saying
that the experience OF other cities goes
to prove that the city cannot furnish
lights any cheaper than private cor
own plant, which costs $14 per light.
Mr.. Moffat tells but half the truth.
Of the 1880 arcs and 433, 400 mean
descent lamps in Chicago, the city
plant runs but LILO lamps. The city
is not allowed to sell to it's citizens
and the wires are placed underground.
But in spite of this the lights cost only
500 per year, according to Chief Bar
rett, instead of $16S, according to Mr..
Moffat; $137 is charged by private com
panies in the district where the wires
have to be buried. How does that
compare with the $126 wanted by the
Salt Lake company for a much larger
number on an overhead circuit? Be
fore Chicago owned any plant the pri-
vate companies charged $3.50 per light
The city also pays better wages than
do the private companies.
I see he cites the case of Bangor.
This city has its own plant, which rep
resents an investment of $3.50 per
lamp. Under private ownership the
cost per lamp was $3.50 per year. I'm
der municipal ownership it is but $48;
if we add Is per cent for interest,
taxes and depreciation, it brings it up
to less than $72 per year-a saving of
over one-half. He instances also the
case of Cambridge at $115. This city
uses sub-arcs. Thirteen miles from Cam
bridge is the town of Peabody, which
owns the plant and furnishes it's own
light for $40, which includes every
thing.
Brooklyn is another of his ex-
amples of private ownership, which
supplies an all-night service for
1882. South Norwalk, forty miles away
with it's own plant, supplied ninety
eight street arcs at $50 per year, which
includes interest on bonds.
Boston's all-night service by pri-
vate company costs $146, according to
Mr.. Moffat. Exactly the same service,
but smaller number of lights. is
furnished Lewiston by its municipal
plant for $50.
Superintendent Watson of the Brain
tree municipal plant says:
1.-THE prices charged in Massachu-
setts towns by private companies for
1,2OO c. p. arc light run as our are
run, averages S95.3S. The cost to the
town from its own plant shows a saw
ing of $2573 per light, or $3,036 on all
lights in use, which amount, if placed
in a sinking fund each year at per
cent interest, is sufficient to pay the
whole cost of the plant in less than
ten years"
A good comparison is that of the
same places under private and after
wards under public ownership.
The following is a table showing at
a glance the difference under the two
plans: