The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-11-18

31rrnto vim b called upon to detsr-
1ns ~ their vote whether or not the city
4 MI tsUus bonds not to exoeed 10 amoln'
+ H.. Nv 70 b used tor tho purpose Of pur-
: 6tne ana sQulpping % electric light
f1nk. to IS owned and operated BY the
\ Nv. Ths ballot viii read;
ssrUr ne issuance Of bonds not to ex-
4 esd 800 900 for the purpose Of erect
a ~ a electric llklk plant for the city
A u lfouSton.' p and Against tho tssuance
~ bond for the purpose OF erecting an
4 electric light plant for the city OF
I Houston," and none other than duly
q 0ueiined veters OF the city Of Houston.
y who own and pay taxes upon properly
Vi within the limits Of the city Oh Hous-
\ ton. viii BE- eligible TO vote at said cleo
\ ton.
!! Though this election is near at hand
there has been very little campaigning
!, = either side Of the proposition with the
/, &vlew Of informing the people either as to
|Ethe advantages or the disadvantages Of
&municipai ownership.
hi The proposition when first submitted to
the city council by Alderman Street Of the
8Third ward met with considerable oppose
7sfion in the board, SO much, in fact. as 10
greatly retard It's passage.
re The local company which now has a
Mmonopoly in the lighting business brought
Fits batteries to bear aud in an effort to
81 defeat the proposition submitted to the city
an amended contract by which they pro-
posed substantially to cut down the pres
ent rate OF lights from 1920 per year per
~ Hight. which the city Is now paying. to
800.
"a In the meantime the people--the tax
rs payers-those who are to eventually decide
w the matter had spoken upon the subject
AZ In no uncertain terms through the medium
n OF petition to the council which was
Il signed by about 500 property owners and
" taxpayers, asking that the question OF
X municipal ownership OF the electric light
N plant be submitted to the vote OF the peo-
y pie.
N This petition was couched in the follow
(, ing language:
Y I'VE. the property owners and tax
y payers OF the city OF Houston do most
Is respectfully and earnestly ask that
You submit to a vote Of the people, the
"A proposition whether or not the city
4 shall issue bonds for the erection OF It's
own electric light plant. We want no
4 compromise In this matter: we want
the matter left with the taxpayers, as
h our charter provides. We have suf-
4 fcrcd aud paid long enough, and We
n now call on your honorable body, in
the name OF justice to give us this, our
only chance, to rid the ax-burdened
property owners of this grasping
monopoly. We confidently claim that
n municipal ownership Of the electric
4 light plant will not be burden, but
& source OF revenue, our tax lessened.
II service better and lights cheaper to
Il the private consumer. We are reliably
II informed that the ownership of the
II electric light plant by tho city of Gal.
weston has resulted In cheaper lights
N ana better service. This Is an age of
progress and 1t behooves us to keen
" step with the onward march We are
n npW paying more for our lights than
4 any other city In the State and do not
Y peheye you will hesitate longer IN
\ allow us this opportunity to right our
wrongs
H inc council finally acceded TO VIVA
Hecmd 10 be popular demand ma arree
seemed to be a popular demand and agree
h taxpayers and to them will be left the I'm,
DETERMINATION OF The matter as to whethe
\ or not the city shall own It's own rlan
Il OF continue to patronize the present com
y pany' which, from the following figures
appears TO be furnishing Houston with
y Iight service at cost far In excess of WIN
X other cities in Texas pay for n like seryic
4 ana over ioo per cen; in excess of the gen
eral average figured out in fifty five elite
It IN the United States that are successful
q operating their own light plants at a
N average cost OF $57,ss per light per annun
X while Houston Is taxed $40, aud for a yer
Il inferior service at that.
Il bringing the comparison near homo ~
ngures have already been published h,
x Will bear repetition here. as showing no
Il much more the citizens OF Houston have
& pay for electric lights than do those
y other citles OF Texas, whilo The cost
b producing thu light is no greater here thu
\ IN any other city of the State.
Galveston is running its own elsctr
& Fight plant. which cost ss5. 900. and is beir
~ run at an operating expense OF s25 900 %
anium' Gaiyeston ls conceded to be q,
Il 81 the best lighted cities In the South a,
Der lights cost her about $4,000 per mont
Il Houston 10 taxed $4,000 a month for Il
poorest light service In Texas.
Waco, a city not half as large as Hou
4 ton. has about 5000 lights In private re-,
II dences. while Houston hsss about 200. t
II reason is patent. not that the people
Waco are more progressive but the exec
In charge for lights IN Houston max
& electric lighting luxury that but I,
X can enjoy.
Fort Worth owns her own electric liz
" plant and her lighting cost $e7.ao Der lie
per annum. while Houston pays s1ao !,
light per aunum.
Extending the comparison OF charges
commercial lighting. Fort Worth pays
Ter month for arc lights 1000 candle DOW
1850 o'clock service. whilo Houston &C
/; sumcrs are charged $lo5o per month
The came service.
n Same light for 10 o'clock service. n
Worth. S.; Houston. SIS.
Same Night all night. Fort worth 4
Houston. $50