The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-02-17

company, 1or MONEY! aAen ooAA0>
Cities. -.
Regarding the discussion of the city
aroused by the action Of the city coun,
Gil in the Patterson case and the stand
taken by Mayor David P. Jones, Alder
man Platt B. Walker today made the
following statement to L ne u
nal:
There has been so much said and printed re-
lating to the awarding Of the contract for in
candescent gas lighting by the city council; an
calculated to confuse and m1sleao the puohc'
as we'll doing injustice to the members
of the council, that | desire to state briefly
some facts all of which I am prepared to sub
stantiate to any fair minded person.
The contracts for lighting the city, approved
by the council and now held up by the mayor,
provided for reduction of 10 per cent
in the cost of incandescent gas lighting, and
approximately per cent saving in the ex-
pense Of electric lighting. comparing both with
the 1905 contract, approved and voted for by
Mayor Jones, who was then president OF the
council. In awarding the contract for the
year 1906, the Minneapolis Gas company was
allowed 95 cents a thousand feet, which was
the price the city has been paying for
gas for number of years. II any criticism is
due the council, it is on account OF not having
insisted upon arbitratng the price of gas which
they are empowered to do by the terms OF the
gas franchise.
Monopoly in Control.
Both our supply Of electric lights and gas Is
controlled by monopoly. In securing com
petitive bids therefore. the only competition
was for the privilege Of contracting to provide
incandescent lighting service for the city. After
the most careful investigation four OF the
FIVE members of the gas committee were thoro-
~ satisfied that governors were absolutely es-
sential to provide a steady, reliable and ell
cient incandescent gas light
The records In the city controllers office
show that the governor has saved the city
over 81, 900 in the amount Of gas consumed
during 1905, compared with the previous year.
Mr.. Roberts. the gas inspector, officially de-
cares that governors provide an Immensely Immensely
better light than lamps that are not equipped
with such device He is prepared to prove
by actual demonstration in his laboratory that
such is the case
Four proposals for furnishing incandescent
lighting We're received. two of which were higher
than the prices paid for this service during the
year 1905. The American Street Lamp &
Supply company bid s11.75 lamp, without
governors, and S12.75 with governors The Pat
terson company. which had previously equipped
one-half of its lamps with governors as
the only means of providing the city with the
service which the council and the public de
manded, bid $12.25 lamp, with governors.
Patterson Gets Contract.
Entirely on the merits of the lights guaran
teed the city with governors, the contract wat
awarded to the Patterson company, 1t being the
lowest bidder specifying governors. From tn
most authentic official information obtainablt
the council gas committee convinced tina
the prices 1t recommended were lower thai
any contract price made by any other city IL
the United States that either did or did no
There was submitted by the American Stree
Lamp Supply company a. supplementary propo
stion, offering to sell the city the lamp
heads and incandescent burners for 81. so each
or to turn over this equipment at the expire
ton of year at the same price, provides
that company was awarded the contract TO
lighting the city during the year 1906. TIL
city attorney ruled that by the limitations o
charter, which prevented the council enter
ing into more than 'one-year contract, tn
option given the city to buy was not bind1n
nor legal, could the city compel the er
forcement Of written verbal promises as
what contracting parties would do IN the fl
ture.
Mayor Jones has utilized some Of the prom
Uses made by the American Street Lamp
Supply company's representative after the
proposition had been rejected to endeavor
demonstrate the large saving to the city ha
that company been awarded the contract.
After the council had ratified the recommends
lions of the gas committee Mayor Jones raise
the legal point that contracts for lighting coul
not be awarded by motion, and refused to ex
cute the contract This a legal point II
volving the construction Of the charter whit
had not been passed upon by the courts and II
Patterson company agreed to enter into frien
~ suit to get a decision on this important ma
ter AS a precedent for all time. it is impo
tant to- have definitely determined both the po1
ers Of the council and the powers OF the mayo
Lights Left Burning.
The lighting company brought mandamus pr
ceedlngs and the district court determined tn
the contention OF the mayor correct tt
Patterson company then appealed to the suprer
court which appeal will be argued at the ne
term. The decision Of Judge Brown left t.
city without any contracts for lighting in exis
ence and no company was authorized to Zig
the streets Of the city until action W
taken by the council.
The three lighting companies have continu
their services, altho we'll aware that in dol
they were taking grave chances Of not getti
their pay. At the last meeting in January
resolution was adopted by the council instru
Ing all three companies to continue their servit
from day to day pending decision in the
preme court. This resolution was passed by
vote of twenty ayes and four nays. The reso
ton provided:
their services from day to day. to be naid
basis of the bids previously accepted
1906.
Secondhand these services should CONT,
until further ordered by the council.
Third-That the arrangement should absolut
terminate not to exceed ten DAYS after filing
the supreme courts decision.
These various provisions put in to gu
against the possibility that the Patterson &C
pany might not perfect and argue at the earli
possible moment its appeal, as we'll as to ms
that the passing of the resolution did not amo
to actually awarding contract, as the mayo
N>PiNSSh'otiNN
Resolution Vetoed
This resolution the mayor vetoed, giving as
only reason the alleged excessive price awar
the Patterson company. He also incorpora
In his veto message to the council the Sc
appeal he has every previous occasion ms
shat an award of the contracts to the Mir
apol1s Gas company and the General Elec
company should be made in such a manner
ne, the mayor, could guarantee the legality
their contracts.
In view of the undisputable fact that
price paid for supplying incandescent lights
contract In Minneapolis Is less than any o.
city secures similar service by contract
%cept ST. Paul, where the price is the So
and the further undeniable fact that no O
city OF approximately the same size pays
high price as does Minneapolis for its gas
electric lighting the position taken by the M
in trying to hold up the contrct for incandes
lighting and forcing the council to award
gas and electric monooolies their contract !
their own terms Is scarcely in keepng with
assurance that In his contention with the o.
Begin =.