Mexico weekly ledger., 1902-07-10
MUNICIPAL
Electric Light Plant and Law Suit
Proves Very Costly to Joplin,
Missouri.

The following communication from
Joplin in reference to municipal
ownership is receiving attention
Throughout the State:
The story Of the disappointment Of
Joplin is best told in the figures which
were obtained from DR.. e. @. I'll.
Squires, the city clerk, who is identi-
fed in politics with the Democratic
Populist party, which, 8 years ago
wrested the city government from the
Republicans and became responsible
for the municipal ownership issue:
Original cost Of the plant, for which
bonds were voted, $4,000.
Construction since found necessary,
falling upon the general fund, $4,000.
Total investment, s45, 900.
Annual tax levy for sinking fund
and interest, 8 5000.
Figuring 5 per cent of the S45, 900 as
the value Of the money and s per cent
as annual depreciation and then adj
ding everything the city has paid out
for operation and maintenance, DR..
Squire figured that the lamps have
cost the city s5.95 a lamp a month, or
s7l.4O a lamp a year.
, "Do you include the SO, 200 a year
raised by a special levy of Sc for sink
ing fund and INTEREST,""
! "No,n replied the city clerk, II
!. omitted that
But that the municipal lamps have
! cost $71.40 a lamp a year when the prlt
e vate company offered them for 500
does not, on the face of it, show any.
thing lost-for the city formerly paid
S72 and would be paying that now il IL
had not built the municipal plant
but, nevertheless, 1t is a bitter disap'
pointment and the city's troubles have
d grown deeper. The lamps Joplin
has arcs and incandescents equal tx
e 100 arcs-are not very strong and de
not look as II they could cause so mucl
trouble. They gllmmer in a weak
apologetlc way, compared with the ag
gressive glow Of the lights Kansal
r City pays sS2. so a lamp a year for. Blu
,; the people say that anything is bette
;; than the former uncertainty Of tn
electric light company's lamps. TIL
people are satisfied with the lights
that is, those who have them on thei
IS streets, for the citizen Of the outskirts
is necessarily, owing to the lack 0
d funds, cast into the outer darkness
N The trouble is money, not price pc
lamp a month. In the aggregate tn
city is paying far more money 70
le lighting.
al Being so extremely limited in reye
b nues by State laws, any unusual In
crease in the cost Of government put
the few officials Of Joplin at their wit
end. The small pox epidemic cost tn
city $4,000, and, so far as the cit
treasury was concerned, the municips
light works we're just as bad. 1t
4 true that the cost Of each lamp-omil
ting the special taxation-is no greai
er than before, but stating correctl
the cost a lamp a month, or year, dot
8not disclose the fact that the city pay
comparatively heavily for the new !
& Illumination because IL uses many NOR
B lamps than formerly and can't reduC
the number. On the contrary, u
-.
people demand OF the aldermen, col
\ stantly that more lamps shall be NUM-
The citizen Of the outskirts say mena'
ingly, ~ pay taxes for these lam
and ! want some Of the hghtF' III
city replies that 1t has no rune
which makes the people demand,
ms taxpayers always do, I'VE pay w.
I'd the money-what do you 90 WIN ~
Sill COST TO THE rAN-fAihhs'
1OI And to pulid thaO same eleosl
". light plant, which inc people ciieu ~
b, the city lac 70 n~ypoDneca.e no snn
he al income, for tne SSo,OVo III pon'
re was Inadequate 10 EQUIP tne "oiN
la Joplin has S2O,ooO noatihg ueoe WIN
is Of doubtful Valiuiy-reany noVeS
IL honor OF the CITY renewed i,onl Se'
ut to year. Thab is now the ol0'VVV "
M raised to complete the "orks anu y
|, a them in operation when ene SOW
he in bonds originally Voteu was iouuu
he be insufficient.
-, Borrowing Sl5, 600 on u current