Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1904-10-27
THE ELECTRIC LIGHT QUESTION

n
desires the comfort and convenience Of
incandescent electric service and has
sufficient pride in the city to see it lifted
from the unique position OF being about
the only place in the United States Of
equal or even one half the population
that is not offering electric service to its
inhabitants.
This, it is confidently believed, is the
position of the majority Of our citizens.
After general discussion of the matter
for several years it was finally decided to
publicly advertise the franchise for sale
and the first bids for the same were open
ed on Nav 10 last, over five months ago,
and we are now apparently no nearer
having an electric plant installed than
We we're then.
The writer offered proposal at both
advertisements for this franchise and was
prepared financially to at once install
the plant under his proposal, but the
committees to- whom the bids were re-
ferred quite properly recommended a
proposition more favorable to the city In
its terms.
The corporation attorney. the writer
understands, has advised the city it has
no right or authority to incur
further Indebtedness for period OF more
than one year; in fact the amount
of the city debt will, am advised, have
to be considerably reduced in few years
to conform to recent legislation. Several
members of council are openly opposed
to granting franchise to any one, and
say the city should build and own the
plant.
The present antiquated and worn out
arc light plant of the city is worth little
more than "scrap" and cannot be ex-
pected 10 serve its purpose much longer.
The offer OF a bidder to pay the city
So. 500 for this old plant, simply means
this amount. less perhaps, 81 900, as an
additional price for the franchise. III
the city cannot build this modern elec-
trio light and power plant aud operate it
as a municipal enterprise, have one or
two or even all members of council the
right, unless Instructed by majority OF
their constituents, to oppose the matter
and stand as a barrier against permitting
some one else, under proper conditions,
to carry out what the city cannot do,
and thus add this modern Improvement
to the city?
Further, the writer does not hesitate
to say if he was called upon to decide
whether the city should build this plant
and had the funds to do so, or whether
they should accept such proposition as
Mr.. Thompson offers, he would earnestly
advocate the granting of the franchise,
and this opinion is the result of expert
ence and close observation in the erection
and operation and management OF such
plant as a private and not n munich
pal enterprise.
1t is entirely foreign to the purpose of
the writer to in any way further delay
this matter, which has already dragged
so long; but there are several points In
the published ordinance granting this
franchise to Mr.. Thompson that are not
clear, at least to the writer.
The law of Virginia states in sub
stance any ordinance as advertised Tor
the granting of any franchise shall be
substantially as the franchise is granted,
except the insertion of names and prices.
The official ordinance as advertised,
and upon which bids we're received, did
not say an exclusive franchise was to be
granted.
Upon what authority then is the
word exclusive" inserted in the grant to
Mr.. Thompson?
Further, the writer believes it is not
within the power of the City Council 10
grant an exclusive franchise to any one
| for any thing. In view of the original
ordinance the city cannot compel Mr..
Thompson to put up bond of $40, 600,
| in 80 DAYS to carry out bis contract. II
is entirely optional with Mr.. Thompson
whether he gives such bond or not un
| ill he is actually ready to begin work
and if he deems it to his interest not Z
build the plant and never begin WORK
he is under no obligation to do so, ant
the city has no recourse under the orai
nance as advertised, except to again ad
vertise for bids. Mr.. Thompson agrees
to furnish, and the committee has &C
cepted, arc lights "of equal candle power
to those now in use (iiteen hundred
candle power)."
The candle power of an arc light is {
misnomer and misleading and Difficult
of veri6cation.
Does Mr.. Thompson propose to U.s.
the present old-style arcs or modern ney
inclosed arc lights, and what is to be tn
w .ttage Of eachf
Mr. Thompson's franchise states h
shall furnish electricity foi light an,
power in the city of Alexandria to al
consumers at an average price not t
exceed 10 cents per kilowatt hour, net
This is very ambiguous. The writer
recollection of Mr.. Thompson's proposs
and the basis on which the bids wer
supposed to be canyassed was that the pric
| for electric current should not exceed L
| cents per kilowatt hour.
| Respectfully,