Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1902-03-13
EXPLANATION WANTED.

GAFLANRtION
80 many members Of the common
council having given out expressions
favorable to the city's owning the
electric light plant If obtainabIe at
ii fair valuation. and there being
heard so many citizens expressing
tie same view, the refusal OF the
council to take action for submitting
the proposition to buy at 10000 needs
explanation.
1t is ~ natural conclusion that If
the city has to pay $500 per,year fer
the services Of ii plant that can be
purchased for $4,000 1t would be good
business sense 10 buy. Why pay 1919
per cent. per annum for that which
we can have for per cent? Has the
common council any reliable infor
IllHllth tllHi lilt ti'Ntlit i'Spt l'"he
is not worth the price asked for it?
Does the council know what are the
running expenses of the plant, how
much is its income from private pat
rons, or what it needs in the way of
additions and repairs to thoroughly
eqnip It to render satisfactory ser
vice to the city and private patrons?
A councilman owes it to the people
to intelligently consider these ques-
tions and frankly answer them be-
fore he arbitrarily refuses to allow Il
popular vote to be taken upon prop
ostion which OH its face appears adj
vantngrous to the city.
Presuming that an additional out
lay OF $1,000 misht be necessary to
properly equip the plant, making the
total cost $4,000, 1t still appears desi-
rable 10 buy. $4,000 could doubtless
be borrowed at per cent, making
the annual interest charge 81, 900. Add
to this $500 per year for expenses
above receipts from private patrons,
and the city would be saving $1,000
per year on present outlay, or enough
to pay the original cost IN ~ years.
The bugaboo that the city could
not run the plant as cheaply as a pri-
waite corporation amounts to nothing.
If the city were to retain Mr., We'll as
superintendent and other employees
Mt the same salaries and on the same
terms as they are now employed, is
it not to be supposed that they would
be as faithful and efficient as now
70 assume otherwise is to question
their honesty. 1t is the stock argu-
ment of opponents of municipal own
ership that while corporations can
profitably run public utilities, the
people cannot do 50.
The Tribune estimates from what
the city pays for lights that the price
asked for the plant is fair, on a basis
of its earning capacity If the coun-
ell knows differently it should so
state, and il it is found better to CON
struct new plant what's TO prevent
the city's doing SO? So far as known
the aldermen who voted against sub.
hitting the proposition offer no eN-
PLANTATION OF their action, A frank
statement of the reasons governing
them might clarity the subject
Oar neighbor tho Democrat opposes
the proposition with a eulogy to the
Electric Light Company and a plea
that bonding the city for a lighting
plant would lessen the chances of Sc
curing new school building soon
The Electric Light Company is no
doubt as satisfactory as such corpo-
rations usually are, and entitled to
fair treatment at the hands Of the
city, but bouquets TO it are uncalled
for. As to affecting the question of
a new school building, we fail to see
any direct connection between the
two propositions; but if the city can
by business investment of $4,000