The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1897-08-03
ELECTRIC LIGHTING CASE.
THE LATE DECISION REVIEWED
BY MAYOR HUBBARD.
Believes It Would be Reversed on
Appeal to the Supreme
Court.

!
| body. 1t deals with the case of the
Sacramento Electric, Gas and Railway
/ Company against the city on it's claim
for street lighting, and the decision in
/ favor of the company:
To the Honorable Board of Trustees:
! On the It'll OF June I returned to your
honorable board, without my approval,
| the demand of the Sacramento Elec-
trio, Gas and Railway Company. for
lighting the city during the month of
May with $40 two thousand candle
power electric arc lamps, at the rate
of $40 % for each lamp
[ considered it my plain duty to the
| citizens of Sacramento to disapprove
this demand, for the reason, as / then
| stated, that the contract was illegal,
in that the price named for each lamp
was excessive, exorbitant and unjust.
it being in excess of the prices charged
! to private customers for a like ser
vice by this company, and being in
| contravention of Section % of the
! Charter.
This action on its demand forced the
! Sacramento Electric, Gas and Railway
/ Company to commence suit for its pay
ment. The case was tried in the Su-
!
of July. and the court rendered judg-
ment in favor of the plaintiff for the
amount of its claim
The court held, and so decided, that
the municipal lighting is a different
service from what is known as COM
mercial lighting.
It was difficult to procure competent
testimony on the part of the city, as no
! n in oil lNt1cin
would be competent to testify in the
| case. We did procure three persons
who have had great experience in op-
Grating electrical plants, and whose
testimony could not be questioned.
They We're persons who had no inter-
est in the case, except to give their
honest opinions from their knowledge
and experience of the business.
These persons all testified that the
electric energy which supplied the mu-
nicipal and the commercial lights was
the same; that it was generated from
the same machines, was transmitted
over the same wires, and was used in
the same kind of lamps; that the only
difference in the service is that the
electric current is conveyed from the
sub-station on different circuits; that
|
municipal lamps is longer and re-
| quires more wire and more poles, and
that there is some more loss of cleo
trio energy on the municipal circuit
than there is on the short or COM
mercial circuits.
The Sacramento Electric, Gas and
Railway Company contend that the
municipal lighting is a different ser
| 1ar-fia al Hvh In hot on
account of the long circuits, much of
the. electric power is lost; that the ex-
pense of trimming the lamps and the
breakage of globes is greater on the
municipal than on the commercial cir
cults, and that the municipal lamps
cost about % per cent. more to OPP
crate.
We think that we proved that the loss
of energy on the circuits was but little:
that the difference in the ex-
pense was only nominal that
| the company requires three men
to trim 2f0 municipal lamps and three
men to trim 200 commercial lamps;
that the men trimming the municipal
| lamps are each provided with a horse
and cart, which would add to the cost
of trimming municipal lamps; but,
| when the expense of a collector and
| solicitor is added to the commercial
lights, the difference in expense is in
favor of the municipal lamps.
The difference in the circuits is not
SO much as the company would have
you believe. The municipal circuits
require about 100000 feet of wire, and
the commercial circuits require over
POO, 600 feet, the reason for this being
that the company has to run separate
| circuits for each group or class of
lamps; those ON the IL O'Clock circuit
are separate from those on the ! o'clock
circuit, and both are separate from the
| all might circuit, so that the company
has to maintain three separate circuits
| of wire for its commercial lights and
only one for the municipal lights. The
cost of poles is quite an important
item, but, when you consider that many
of their poles are used for other lines
of wire than the city circuit, it reduces
| this item very materially.
! I desire particularly to call your at
tention to the difference in the hours
| of service between the municipal
lamps and the all-night commercial
lamps, and also the net prices. Under
| the schedule under which the munic
! ipal lamps are operated the lamps will
each burn 1866 hours during the year
at a cost Of so % per month, or 1923
per year. The all-night commercial
lamps wild burn nearly, if not quite,
5000 hours during the year, at a cost
of 50 per month, or Sos per year.
1t is evident, therefore, from the fore
going that the lamp of the private Gus
toner burns so per cent. more hours,
and he is charged nearly IA per cent.
less per lamp than is charged the city.
No competent electrician would at
tempt to prove by actual figures that
/ the municipal lights on our mixed
| schedule would cost as much to oper-
ate as the all-night commercial light.
The court, in rendering its decision
in this case, takes the ground that the
! service is not the same, and that the
contention that the company is charg
! ing more for municipal lightning than
to private customers for a like service
! is not proven With all due respect for
the learned court which rendered the
decision in this case, we think that we
| did show that the service was the same,
the municipal lights than the CONNER
| clad lights.
| The Corporation Counsel, who had
| charge of the case, is of the opinion
that the decision should have been for
| the city. and that if the case We're
carried to the Supreme Court the de-
cision would undoubtedly be reversed