Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-01-21
THE LIGHT THAT FAILED.
Commissioners Wade and Jackson I Have a Biz lob on Their Hands.

Commissioners Wade and Jackson Of the department of public works, who have been appointed to 1nvest1- gate and report upon the bill of the trolley company, withheld by the former board. and also to inquire into what there is in the claim of the city for re- bates to that amount for lights that failed to burn, have big job on their hands if they do their duty to both parties, as no doubt they will. In the first place. the trolley folks claim that the number of lights out prior to ana since the strike would not amount to much, and hint that the board acted rather arbitrarily in not paying the whole amount of the bills as rendered. They also state that the city never asked for a rebate, but they do admit that attention was called to the poor light service during the strike. I'hls is the company'S side of the case, put,
 as Commissioner Wade remarked tue other evening, the old board must have
 had a reason for what they did. They
 had, and their reason if looked into Ill
 an impartial way, will not look like
 disposition to harass the company, puC rather to a disincllnation to pay for something which they knew the city
 had not received. What private cor
 
 for the receipt for S3Ooo or $4,OOO
 worth of stock when they were ill pos
 session of facts which showed that
 a certain portion of 1t had not been
 delivered? -..
 It should be remembered that no
 matter how well things work at the
 power station, lights will fail to burn
 on and off, and it would be unfair to
 find fault with the company about
 such things, but is it right that they
 should be paid for the lights that fail
 to perform their proper function, espe- cially when the contract expressly
 states that a rebate shall be made for lights that do not burn? 1ne depart
 ment of public works did not think so and they didn't wait until the strike
 to get that notion into their heads.
 The reports of the doings of that body
 show that the lighting question was the most annoying part of their work and long before the strike was thought
 of the subject was thoroughly aired and committees appointed to see what could be done in the premises, though, to be sure, the thing didn't reach the climax until the strike of the trimmers and for time all the lights were out.
 But never mind about that phase of the question. Let us see how much truth there is ill the contention that all the poor service was during the strike. In January, 1902, year before the strike, the contract price of the lights reported out by the police amounted to $11.75. In the corresponding month
 for the following year, when the strike
 was on, the bill footed up only $7.19.
 It is true that the service was worse in
 the months of February and March,
 1908, than ever before or since. the le. 1T TN11,z l.
 for March $369 After this the re- bates got down to the normal figures,
 anywhere from $1 to $20 per month,
 In March of last year when the city
 had but little electric light service, a
 bill was rendered for the usual amount The clerk was instructed to
 apprfse the company of the, situation and also inform them that the board
 wanted a rebate on that bill. They answered requesting that the amount of the rebate claim be submitted. The city paid as much of the bill as they
 believed was due and deferred action
 on the balance until the rebate could
 be figured out, which was quite a big job. The work has been completed
 up. to last July and the sum total foots
 7'W something in the neighborhood of
 $1,400. The amount withheld is a trife
 over SLIGO. Probably half the sum
 total of the rebates are chargeable to the months while the strike was On. The board was acting for the city and it was it's bounden duty to perform it's duties faithfully regardless of the dis turbed condition of the times. Wheth-
 CT the company was responsible for the trouble or whether the blame rest ed with the employees, or whether the
 company didn't receive proper protec- ton, had nothing to do with the case so far as the board of public works
 was concerned. It got bill for some thing 1t knew the city had not received and refused to settle for any more of it than 1t had reason to believe was due. That's the position the board took. Honest men may differ as to whether its course was right or not but 1t is certain that it acted from honest motives and was in no way in. fuenced by what was going on be tween the company and its employees.