The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-04
MILLIONS for Light.

The contract for lighting public buildings
has been let for two years from June 3, 1888,
t. the san Francisco Gas and Electric Com
Ta1y and the Pacific Gas Improvement Com
Tsny. which pools its earnings with the former
p t.ru6ration. at the following rates: For gas
.t---candle power). 81 so per 1000 cubic feet and
for electric light G6-candle power), for certain
buildings. 10 cents per 1000 Watt hours, and
fer certain other buildings, 10 cents per lUUO
II att hours. II Is necessary to keep check
,a,r1n the meters, because during the year, by
experts I discovered that the electric meters OF
tho City Hall running about ~ per cent
fast and secured corresponding reoate nI9In
the company. The cost OF lighting the pubic
buildings during the last fiscal year amounted
n s42 -9l S. This contract should have been
lst for but one year, and the ooara may SET Il
aside and readvertise for proposals.
=; -re most important contract, however.
which involves an expenditure OF about $SoV, Oog
.:sjitu-bs by gas and electric light. The Super
,ie--s undertook to let a contract for this pur-
nose m tba san Francisco Gas and Electric
t.-r1uary for two years from the 18th day OF
August 1895, at the following rates: OF e@Jii
gas lamp not to exceed $500 In number, II
S5rrs nsr night; for each electric lamp (2Ooe-
candle power]. 50 cents per night
The Mayor then gives the details s7t or the
rssmPt by the III establish 9gshaa competing s
plant and furnish light to the city az d
saving of $4,000 Of public money weary;
The Supervisors blocked the pro1ect ana
the case was taken into court. eJuuge
EeaweU decided the action OF the super
visors was illegal. Following the decl-
sion his Honor vetoed the lighting con-
tract. Fut ne was ONtIIuleu ny LAIS DONAe
and subsequently he vetoed the demands
Of the gas company for payment Oh thelr
bills. Continuing, he says;
AS advised by the City and County Attorney,
the board has full power to regulate the rates
for gas and electric light for private consump-
tlon The Mutual Electric Light Company claim
that they would have saved not only the CITY
$40 900 on its contract but private consumers
500. 900 4 their petition ~ the 10th day or
April were granted which viii clearly indicate
to you that the prices charged Tor artlhclal ilght
IN this city excessive. The san francisco
Gas and Electric Companys plant, am
credibly informed, be duplicated for not
more than s. 600 000 whereas It is selling on
the market for upwards Of Sl2, 000, 000 and the
consumers are paying mis- company interest at
the rate of per cent on the par value of
its stock and bonds, now standing at upward
OF Sl3 $50 500, besides its taxes operating ex-
peBses and surplus accumulatiOns.
The rank imitation of this stock is notorious.
As the consumer is required to pay this
fictitious capitalization. the consumer is being
robbed with and by the consent of the Board
Of Supervisors It Is the principal duty Of the
Gas Inspector under the law to make in
vestigation Of these facts preliminary to
fixing a reasonable rate, but this the Gas In
spector has failed to do.
The Mayor then declared that munich
pa} ownership is the only ultimate solu-
ton of the YeXatious gas and water Ques-
ton.
He believes the cemeteries are encroach-
ing upon the health and progress of the
city and that further interments in the
city limits should be prevented and he
recommends liberal policy toward the
Suburbs in the construction of sewers and
the Improvement Of the sanitary condi-
lions. The extension of the Sunset dis
trlct sewer system from Fourteenth and
II streets 10 Twenty-fourth and [ streets
IS recommended, the property
having agreed to share in the expense.