New-York tribune., 1903-04-08


tity OF light that is obtained under the Wells
bach lantern.
A significant fact bearing on this question is,
that on April 16, 1902, the Chicago South Park
Board renewed a contract with the Welsbach
Company at $4,000 per annum per lamp Inc
lights are Michigan Avenue
The system adopted in Chicago can never De
satisfactory to the citizens of New York But
however that may be, If it shall be determined
by the authorities that it is to the interest OF
the citizens of New York to adopt the system
used In the City of Chicago. the Consolidated
Gas Company is entirely willing to use the
same or indeed to use the Welsbach or any
other fncandescent mantle that the City Will
direct on the City paying the cost thereof, and,
of course assuming the responsibility or any
claim that may be made for the violation OF
patents.
Dealing then with the question of incan-
descent gas supply in the Borough OF Manhat-
TAM it is stated by Mr. Monroe that the cost
to the City is at the rate of SD per lamp per
annum That service is certainly as cheap, II
not cheaper, than similar service in most other
cities of the Union. For the determination OF
this question, we take Schedule d of Mr.. Mon
roe's report referring to the Weisbach light. He
first specifies the City of Chicago, but in this he
is clearly in error, for that city has neither the
weIsbach light lantern. He also specIhes
the cities of Baltimore, Charleston. Seattie'
Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Wilmington, none
of which have the Welsbach burner mantle,
and lantern and five of which cities are now
in litigation concerning the right to use any
mantle at all. The cost to Portland instead OF
being $23, as stated by MI Monroe is 9-o'oo
per lamp.
As to Dayton, we cannot get accurate in
formation, but are informed that the Welsbach
may be that in that one case some local con-
tract is in existence at the sum reported by
Mr.. Monroe for the 700 lamps used in that city,
The remaining cities specified in ME- Mon
roe's report are San Francisco, which he states
costs at the rate of $3.50 per lamp. and he
omits to state is run on a moonlight schedule;
New Bedford, costing at the rate of S2SI5 per
lamp; Rochester, S29 per lamp; Cambridge
Mass, S29SS per lamp; while Boston. New Ha-
ven, Yonkers. Lancaster, Jersey City, ProVl-
dence, Omaha, and Worcester. Mass. are all
at the rate Of $50 per lamp, and Binghamton
n. Y, is $31.
It will be seen, therefore, that the arrange
nent by which the Consolidated Gas Company
furnishes the Welsbach lamps and incandescent
mantles to the City of New York at the rate
of 500 per annum per lamp is under the cost
paid by all other cities for the same services,
save Dayton, New Bedford, and San Francisco
New Bedford is 40 cents less per annum; San
Francisco, % cents less per annum, plus the
moon; and Dayton, concerning which we cannot
obtain accurate information.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING.
The main criticism however, of Mr.. Monroe
is directed to the cost to the City of electricity
as an iIluminant. He states that the price
paid in the Borough of Manhattan for 1000
candle power lamp is S146 per year; that he has
secured reports from IS cities throughout the
country showing the prices paid in those cities
for supplying the same with lamps of ZOO can
die power and that the average cost is SoSoo
per lamp per year.
Concerning the question of electricity. 1t is
proper to say:
The electric lighting companies In the CITY OF
New York have from time to time voluntarily
reduced their rates to the City and private con-
sumers without any pressure from the nunlci-
pal authorities legislative action
The cost for arc lamps in the Bronx, fnVoiV-
ing nearly one thousand, was reduced IN l9oZ
from 45 cents to 40 cents per lamp per nlght'
and number of lamps in special localities IN
the Borough of Manhattan, for which the city
hand previously paid 30 cents and 10 cents per
lamp per night. reduced to the uniform rate
of 40 cents.
The Edison Company also reduced the price
of electric current in 1898, and at the same
smallest as well the largest consumer could
obtain discount.
A second reduction was made two years later,
and on September l. 1902 the third in the series
of reductions made and contemplated was an
nounced this change reducing the maximum
1rice of electric current from 20 cents TO 10
cents per kilowatt hour. This reduction, IN
many cases % per cent from former bills, Will
amount to nearly 100000, the entire expense
of electric street lighting in the Borough OF
Manhattan for year.
This change will be the better appreciated
when it is recalled that in Chicago and Boston,
where many items of cost are lower than here,
the maximum price is still 20 cents per kilowatt
hour.
On analyzng the table prepared by Mr.. Mon
roe as basis of comparison with bids made
for electric lighting for lamps in the City of
New York we find:
The electric light plants in some of the cities
SO selected are operated by water power; many
OF them have limited light schedules of 5000,
1850 and $500 lighting hours per year, instead
of g. $50 as required by the New York schedule.
In many of the selected cases, the current sup
piled is far less than required in New York
In almost every case the service is largely, If
not entirely, overhead. with wooden poles or
outriggers and in but one case is the service en-
tirely underground in the Borough of Man
haitian.
1t is therefore, apparent that the general fig
ures collected by Mr. Monroe form no basis for
a comparison with the fair cost of electric lights
In the City of New York.
The main basis of comparison however, that
is made by MI Monroe both the question of
incandescent mantles and the question of elec-
trc lighting, is the cost to the City of Chicago.
in