La Junta tribune., 1905-04-01
so.s .sour r.Ar s,s.. ,,A.r

| Editor TRIBUNE. In several an
ticles which have addressed to YOU
during this campaign have at
tempted TO show that the municipal
ownership of electric lighting plants
has not been a success l have
stated that in some instances for a
few years after the plants were
started things seemed to move along
swimmingly, everything was lovely
and THE goose honked high" but
have stated that these were only
surface indications and that time,
with its attendant weapon. deprecia-
ton, has usually been able to tell
the story in from six 10 ten years.
In a recent issue of your paper
published a letter showing that
within the last two weeks the muni-
eipal plant at Elgin, ILL.,. has been
abandoned by the city. it having
proved complete failure and hav-
ing lost to the taxpayers of that city
the enormous sum of Sl66. 900 since
it was purchased by the city in lSS9.
The champion of municipal owner
ship in the last issue of the great
family journal delves into ancient
history and quotes from the Review
of Reviews of 1893 which, the
readers will notice. was four years
after the Elgin plant was purchased
by the city-to the effect that until
March 1889. Elgin paid local com
panies at the rate of $266 per arc
light per year, while at that time,
in 1893. it was supplying itself for
less than quarter of that sum.
This statement is entirely in line
with what | have been trying 10
impress upon the public by this
series of letters, to-wit: That dur
ing the first few years of municipal
operation things appear to be all
right, depreciation is not apparent,
and superficial observers point
with pride" TO the magnificent re-
suits which are really no results at
all.
In 1898. Mr.. NJ. J. Francisco, a
man who has devoted his lifetime to
problems attendant upon electric
lighting. published a most compre-
hensive treatise on every phase of
the subject, from which ! quote the
following with reference to the
Elgin plant:
They have been compelled to
refit their plant with new apparatus
after little over six years use.
proving that in this case ten per
cent depreciation was too low"
In the same report he states that
the salary of the electrician is
charged to general expenses city
and not to light account. so that it is
probable that some of this alleged
low cost is in bookkeeping.
In later report Mr.. Francisco
makes the following statement:
The Elgin plant was erected
originally only for street lighting
and cost $27 900. The coal cost is
$2 per ton; the operating expenses
are $l3. 900 annually. interest on the
investment at five per cent is 81 $50;
depreciation. il figured at only five
per cent, 81, $50; taxes and insur-
ance. $27O. making . total of SIS $40
as the cost of the street lights"
In this same article Mr.. Francisco
gives the number of street lights as
ninety-eight. From the above fig
ures it is easy to see that the cost Of
municipal lighting at the time Of
Mr. Francisco's last report was sl63
per light per annum. Without
doubt this cost increased as the
plant grew older. In 1888, as shown
by Matthews report, quoted further
along in this article. the Elgin lights
were shown to cost $10O.73, while
the figures given in the later Fran
cisco report show that they had al |
ready increased to sl63 per light.
and probably further increased as
time passed on.
In 1898, Ex-Mayor Matthews, Of
Boston. was employed by the city of
Brookline, Mass, to investigate the
question of whether it would be
best for that city to install its own
plant or make a contract with a
private company for street lights.
and among other things Mr.. Mat