The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1902-05-03
ELECTRIC LIGHT CONTRACT
THE COMPANY WILL GIVE NO
MORE REDUCTION

dent English of the United Illumin'
ating Company TO the Lamp Commit
tee-He Denies That Bridgeport Gets a
Cheaper Rate.
At the meeting Of the lamp commit
tee last night the chairman, Alderman
John F. Sayers, submitted letters which
he had received from James English,
company, in relation to the proposed
new contract with the city for electric
lights. In one letter it was stated that
the company had just entered into a
four year contract with Bridgeport
lights and agrees to add not less than
twelve new lights in each of the four
first year the city will have in opera
ton not less than $40 lights and in the
fourt h year not less than 546 lights The
contrct price to be paid by the city is
$S3 per light per year. The company
does not make any cash rebate as pro-
vided for in the New Haven contract,
and the number of lights is fixed and
cannot be reduced as in New Haven
1t had been stated in a local paper
that the price in the Bridgeport con-
tract was less than tnat offered to New
Haven.
The other letter was in response to a
request for terms for one year con-
tract and will be Transmitted to the
board of aldermen Monday night. The
letter is as follows:
j. F. Savers, Chairman Joint Commit
tee on Lamps, New Haven. Conn;
Dear Sir:
The United Illuminating company ac-
knowledges the receipt of the vote of
the board of aldermen, requesting the
United Illuminating company to sub
mt figures for one year contract.
In reply the company respectfully
submits that in view of the limited ap-
fo, the year 1902, made by
the board of finance to the lamp de-
partment, it is impracticable from
business standpoint to consider making
a one year contract for the maintenance
Of the existing number of electric arc
lights.
Under the existing contract, which
loes not expire until July 1st, 1902, the
number of electric arc lights now main
tanned by the city is $40, and the rate
per year is s91.25. The appropriation
FOR the year 1902 for electric arc light
ng was $4,000 $40 lights will cost $24-
'37 so, for the six months ending July
list, leaving only $l9,362.5O for the last
six months of this year, which at the
present rate will pay for only 425 lights,
,r lis less than are now In operation
To maintain $40 lights throughout the
present year, requires, in addition to
he reduction in price of 1912 IL per
amp per year as offered in the new
contract that the contract shall be dat
ID back to January 1st, 1902. and the
ompany rebate TO the city the same
9.12 IL per lamp for the six months
,nding July 1st. 1902, as provided in hte
lew contract This reduction amounts
o $4, 927.5 per annum.
After careful consideration Of the |
Whole matter, the company submits |
hat the proposed contract now pend |
ng before the court of common eoun- |
ii is the only one that it can offer |
Which will permit the maintenance of |
he present number of electric lights |
within the amount Of the appropria-
ion, and respectfully declines to sub
nit a contract for the term of one year,
r for any term less than the one fixed
n the pending contract While the
erm stated in the contract is four
ears, it is in fact an extension of only
hree years and six months.
BY contract number one, the city was
to take $50 lights from July
st to December 31st, 1902, and to add
fteen new lights each year thereafter.
his form of contract did not meet
18th the approval OF the corporation
)unsel and in accordance with his
pinion it was redrafted so that the
ty is not bound to any fixed number
{ lights-the cost being regulated by
le number actually maintained by the
ty in each year of the contract.
Paragraphs and s Of contract num-
ar two are drawn in accordance with
le recommendation of the corporation
nunsel as stated in the last paragraph
his opinion, wherein he says that "a
,ntract for term of four years is not
lrea sonable" provided the city is not
1und to maintain and pay in future r
ears for any designated number of ,
ghts.
An examination of the opinion of the
rporation counsel and of the revised
ntract will disclose the contract num- ,
n two does not conflict with any pro- {
sion of the city charter,-either as to ,
$ term or otherwise.
The United Illuminating Company, !
BY James English, President.
LICENSE REETySED 1