The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-01-25
CITY'S ELECTRIC LIGHT PLANT
COMMISSIONER HAMILTON TELLS
WHY WORK WAS NOT PUSHED.
The Hoard was Not Unanimous,
Three Favored md Two Opposed
the Construction.

In removing the old electric light board
the mayor announced that in creating a
new board he would place upon 1t mon
whom he knew to be in favor OF the speedy
construction of the plant.
AS 1t was generally known that Messrs.
Hugh Hamilton and Ed McGowan OF the
old board opposed the construction Of the
plant, reporter for The Post called upon
Mr.. Hamilton yesterday with the view
of asoertaining tho cause OF his opposition.
There were a number Of reasons" said
Mr.. Hamilton, why / opposed the install
lation OF the plant ! am not opposed TO
the municipal ownership OF light plant
per SO II | could be convinced that II
could DO constructed and rum economically
aud at saving TO the city, but have
never been able to convince myself that
such results could be achieved under all
OF the conditions surrounding the proposed
installation of this plant.
I'm the first place 100000 is not sufii-
Gent to install such plant as VIII meet
the requirements of the city. This sum
might have been sufficient when the idea
of building a municipal plant was original
ay proposed, but the advance In all char
acter of building material and machinery
has placed The construction OF the plant
beyond that figure, and an additional $50,
200 would now be necessary 10 equlp such
plant as might have been equipped two
or three years ago for 100000
Again such plant as is proposed by
Tho plans as submitted by Engineer Potter
as at least ten years behind the times. If
Houston lis to have a light plant sh
should certainly have one that would be
in every respect up to date Such a plant
an is proposed by Mr. Potter would not. in
my opinion. he source OF economy to the
city. It wiz In no way meet the require
rnents and will not have sufficient ca
pacity to furnish more than the number
OF street lights at present required by tho
city. leaving commercial lights. from
which the city expected to derive n rev.
enue, entirely out Of the question. Such a
plant as is contemplated under the pres.
ent arrangements viii cost the city at
least $40 per lamp per annum. and there
Is certainly no economy IN this when a
better contract could be made with the
company now in existence here,
Another thing. l don't believe that the
management of the plant could be kept out
OF politics, and this viii impeis It's use
fulness from the start.
THE delay to which the mayor refers
Is largely due 10 the delay OF the city
in providing site for the plant. How
ever much the board may have favored the
project we could not build an electric hight
plant without first being provided place
TO build it.
After considerable delay the city
finally purchased The jules Hirsch proper.
r. down tho bayou, and said to us; Here
IL your siLe for light plant Owing to
the distance necessary TO wire IL would
have cost a; least 100000 more to have
Installed the plant there than 1t would
have cost TO place 1t In the city, and
II would have cost $4,000 moro per am
mum to operate II there,
These we're my chiet objections" said
Mr.. Hamilton, 'to installing the plan
and feeling as did about II, I should hav,
resigned from the board had not the mayor
foresisllod my intentions by creating
new board
OF the other members of the old board Il
is understood that MIR McGowan concidet
with the views OF Mr.. Hamilton In his OPP
position to the plant while the other tire,
members, Messrs. Chlldress Jones and
Long favored the construction. though all
OF them opposed the plans as submitted
by Mr.. Potter, but the maiority finally ac-
oepted them as Mr. Potter stated that hc
wonld FURNISH no other