The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-03-09
MAYOR aIvEs REASONS
Believes that Patterson Lighting Bid
r Is Far Too High. Is SSsss

The mayors message to the city
council on the lighting question deals
briefywi his reasons for signing the:
electric and gas resolutions and dis
approving the Patterson resolution. He
is compelled to sign the electric reso-
luton, as there is no chance OF compe-
tition in this city within a year. at
Continuing, the message says:
Gin the matter Of gas lighting it is
true there is no opportunity for compe-
tition in this city. There is, however,
provision in the franchise Of the
Minneapolis Gas Light company by
which The city can, fat its option, de:
mand an arbitration Of the price Of
gas for city use. ....--..,
ssThe discussion which has arisen
during the last three months in cornea :
ton with the Patterson street lighting
contract has doubtless been responsible
for directing the attention Of Ne c.oun,
Gil to the possibility Of secur' ~ q
better rate from the Minneapolis t2as
Light company, by arbitration, MD :. ~
apparently the unanimous desire Is 7o:3s
honorable body to now -procee,i :. =. e
manner prescribed by law TO se~:vs d
lower price for gas. -.
:"With this proposed plan of the
council, if carried out, Il am IN hearty
accord and sympathy, and have been
from the first. Until an arbitration OF
The price for gas light. shall be deter
mined, it is my plain duty. to approve
Of the resolution which you have passed,
giving day-by-day contract to the
Minneapolis Gas Light company:
~ am constrained, however, to veto
again the resolution authorizing the
execution Of a contract with the Pat
terson Street Lighting company for
incandescent lighting for. any period.
The incandescent method Of lighting is
not a necessity and differs from the
Furnishing Of gas and electricity IN
that the system or method IS SUBJECT
"a competition and has not yet become
monopoly. %~ -.
In nv. former veto message l dis
cussed at some length the reasons com,
pelling me to withhold my approva! OF
this contract. Nothing has transpiI;ed 9
since to alter my opinion that the price
asked by the Patterson company IS un'
! reasonable and excessive. and | think
Il unbusinesslike to enter, into con.
tract with any company at the price OF
1925 a lamp year for incandescen1
| lighting. 49,,
Tiff the bids submitted are unsatIs
factory, it NAV still be possible for the
CITY to readvertise for new bids, or the
alternative is open for the city to buy
| the necessary apparatus and perform
the service itself, as in the casesof 1T
maintenance Of the gasolene lamps nov
| in use. The commendable effort OF thu
council at this time to secure reduc
1 tion in the price Of gas would seem u
warrant your honorable body IN tak an:
a determined stand to secure a falre:
price for incandescent lighting, but TN
interests Of the council in a wider Scoop cop
i RI = i I L L. EH>E II
LIGHTING and the securing Of bette
rates for gas need not obscure the or1gl
/ nal main issue still undetermined, name
Nv. the resonableness Of the Patterson
] street lighting contract
|4-&sst As at the beginning. desire to dl
i rect definitely and earnestly the atten
ton Of your honorable body to fhe e e <
cessive rate Of compensation called II q, TO :,
n the pending contract, and | shall b
/ obliged to withhold my signature iron
] resolution awarding a contract to tn
4 Patterson Street Lighting company