The daily journal. (Salem, Or.) 1899-1903, 1903-08-07
DEFENDS
H0LD-UP
CONTRACT
AIdermanSimsReplieS
tOaJOurnal Editor
o. ,ial on Lights
Fg2FN TTTD
Quotes Some Figures From
ROsehurg That Are
Plainly Mis-
~ leading

The Journal "a IN receipt of peril.
nent Communication on the subject OF
city lighting from Councilman Thomas
Sims. which Is printed below. Owing
TO ihe Importance Of the question.
some pains have been taken TO verify
the statements maze by this paper.
which are conuudlcted In hia article,
and below IN also appended some cor.
respondence which explains Itself.
Taxpayers are requested 10 carefully
con both Sides OF this controversy and
BE- governed thereby.
600 Mr. sims's Letter.
"a. Journal; Ia your editorial OF
July ~. 1909, you crltlclso the nye
members Of the council who refused 10
renew the proposed nve.year contract
of the Electric lARht Company for fur
nlshlnK llghts 10 the city of Salem at
th,9b for each arc lamp OF 1900 candle
power per month, and YOU further say
that IL u was good contract at that
time tmeaning IN 1898. when II was
entered lnio), Il must bo a better one
now, and yet Il h turned down without
Elflng any TeaA0n.''
iAoa Nefo mistaken when you said
We Have no reasons. Our reasons are
Wen known TO the Electric IAEht Com
pahy. which has not only become the
owner OF the electric llght plant. but
alec the Eas cnmpany'a plant.
Il Ia more than n year before this
old contract viii be out. and when n
explreB u 4 the Intention OF the mem
bera of the council, who voted .aa |
did, 10 indefinitely postpone this pro
posed renewal contract for another
ave years. Go An the rates by Ordk
nance Tor Furnishing lights, either gas
or electricity. not only TO the city ol
salem, but 10 the people OF Salem. a.
well. |I.I..
The council has the right. under our
new city charter. 10 regulate these
matters by ordinance. and 20 compel
the company 10 perform their part OF
the contract, provided the rates iixad
by the ofdinanoe are reasonable.
You intimate IN your editorial that
THIS "aoulloas corporation" will de
mand even higher rates than they are
now furnishing lights 10 the city.
when their contract Ia out, because Of
the fact that the council refused 20 en-,
ter lnto thls new proposed contract
I0r nye years al the present time.
Wen. II u should. Il viii nnd that IL
cannot do 10, because Il has admitted
BY iss anxiety 90 have Ia contract
elgned up Tor ave years. that Il Il not
reasonably worth any more than 81. Vi
Per month Tor each are lamp used by
When the question was np before
the council tO allow another electric
Nsht plant franchise Ia this city. the
Argument was used then. both In The
Journal and Statesman, that Il would
~ better % Keep out competition. and
allow one cofpOratlon 10 furnish ali
the lithte. and regulate and control n
m the matter of making reasonable
charE6s tor the service. and this Il
what Nc pFopoHe 10 de
You say in your editorial that the
present o0nifact rs conceded 10 be
The best On the coast"
nnd that this statement In your
editorial "a quite inaccurate. ana
wide " the mark, I find that the peO
PIE OF hoeebnrg arr furnished 1900
capdlo power arc lamps al Al "a per
month. while the clilEeha ~ Salon
ana - cluscna ere paying S6.95 per
month for the same kind Of lamps. 1
al.o nnd that the people % Rosebnre
are farnlshed ID candlop0N lnean
descent laplps AZ less than onehalf
What the people Of Salem have 10 PAY
tor the same lamps. ! have made an
intealigatlon and hnd that the ixed
charges established BY the electric
eppnaahy 4 a llttle higher than the nat