The Butler weekly times. (Butler, Mo.) 1881-1918, 1901-03-21
SHALL THE CITY OWN
ITS OWN LIGHT PLANT:

That is the question now before the
voters OF Butler to settle. The coun-
! ell recently had estimates made by
competent expert electrician, OF the
probable cost of establishing an cleo
tric light plant, the cost OF operating
same. the loss in wear of machinery,
interest on money invested, etc, to-
gether with the probable earning ia
pacity OF the plant, which estimate
/ is published in fIll in another column
and its careful and thoughtful con
sideration by the taxpayers is in
vited.
/ The TINES had taken the position
in the past two years that it was bet
ter for the city to do without light
for few years, until all the princi-
pal streets Of Butler were macadam-
anized. and what has been accom-
plished i'm that direction. we be-
| lieve. bear Us out in that proposition.
We still maintain that we need more
! OF the streets improved permanently
in that way, worse than we need
lights. The latter is Il luxury, which
is mighty nice and convenient to
have. but leaves no permanent bene-|
fit behind. After our principal
streets are macadamized, then we
can secure Just as favorable light
propositions a. we can now.
However, if in the Judgment OF the
voters the time has come when the
city should have street lights, then
we are decidedly in favor OF munich
pal ownership. The estimates pub
lished elsewhere appear to have been
made with care, and certainly the
costs of machinery and other mate
rails have been very liberal, and the |
earning capacity has been placed at !
very modest figures, in spite of which |
it shows that instead Of paying two |
thousand dollars for the street lights, |
as is the case when the franchise is |
given a company, the private con
sumption pays the costs of operat-
ing and the public lights, leaving the
taxpayers to pay the interest on the
investment and provide II sinking
fund to pay off the bonds as they be-
come due
The city council OF Chillicothe, No,
recently referred the matter OF
that city buying it's own lighting
plant to the committee on public
works. That committee, after dill
gent and painstaking research, made
an elaborate report to the council
favOring municipal ownership, which
report was published in full in the
Missouri World. 1t showed that a
large number of towns i'll Missouri
and other states, of from 1000 to
10000 population, that owned their
own light plants. and in some cases
their water works, almost invariably
reported that it was a big saving to
the taxpayers and a good thing for
the towns
The principal argument used
against the city's building and oper-
ating it's own light liant, which we
have heard. is that the life of an cleo
5ric light plant is only ten years We
nave no doubt the gentlemen using +
that argument are sincere in their l
belief, but we are inclined to the be- i
ief that the life OF that kind OF ma
,hinery, like all other kinds, depends :
Wholly upon the manner in which it
5 handled. We believe electric ma
,hinery can be ruined and worn out t
n less than ten years, and on the Y
other hand, when properly handled L
an be preserved as long as any Their f
lind OF machinery. t
SO we repeat, so far as we are con
erned, if the time has come to put in .
public lights, this We believe is a good
OF course the cOuncilin {
,uying the material will not be bound
" these estimates, but there is no
economy in buying cheap machinery.
A two-thirds majority vote is nee +
ssary to carry the proposition. \
The cashier of the First National