The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-05-27

consistent advocate of municipal own
e-ship. Mr. Howard goes farther than
the mere present cost and takes into
consideration the advantages and dis
advantages of the two sides for the
whole period. If every councilman and
citizen would do this the matter would
discussing the matter says: L believe
that the great majority of the people
have faith in municipal ownership in
general and of our city lighting plant
as we'll as our waterworks in particu-
lar. Is there anyone now advocating
letting out our water system? There
were great many at the time of the
agitation for its purchase by the city
1t is evident that the plant needs re-
pairs, and that it would be a plain
business proposition to install a mod
ern plant now and use the new cheap
fuel
some throw up their hands in
horror at $50 per lamp per year (this
is admitting the cost to be that al
though il is far too high)- The best
contract price at the time was $12O
so we can consider saving of $40
per lamp per year. up to two years
ago and then We got the $50 PROPOSE
ton. There has been an average of
sos lamps in use during this time so
year means an item of $1S4.S00 in
that time That is enough to pay the
bond issue and all the interest and
put away S24,S00 toward our new
a great deal of money in the past
twenty years by having our own plant
Now since recent great improve
ments in lighting apparatus and cheap
fuel We have S55 contract This is
very reaSona bile AS little as we could
expect from any company on earth
and a lot less than we could from
most companies. Mr.. Myers does not
want the contract anyway, but I be-
lieve the city would make a bad break
to do away with her own plant under
any circumstances. We have no right
to say that Topeka ever has or will
make a failure of her city plant. I
believe that Topeka has enough clean
honest brains TO run its own affairs.
even if some other cities have tried it
and failed A glance at the list of
striking resemblance TO a list of sa-
loon towns and what else could be
expected of communities that are even
partially liquor soaked. We have no
at all. I will have in a few days re-
ports from cities that have made
success of municipal ownership and
also reports on the same kind of ap-
The new plant should be under civil
service as well as our fire department
and in fact, 1 hope within year to see
the police department and water
works as we'll all SO far removed from
political pull. that our department Of
fcials and employees can never be
molested by political bosses I ex-
pect 10 spring an ordinance at a very
early date to put the police depart
ment on civil service. One feature of
the contract seems TO have been over
looked by some but deserves mention,
that is. that IS there have been Won
derful developments in the last ten
years in electricity so we have a right
to expect great improvements in the
next ten years. The world electrical
ly is surely going forward and at
lively pace. and we ought to be free to
take advantage of this. and further L
believe We as a city. would be going
backward to sit down on municipal
ownership
The great mistake made by most
people in this matter is that in figur-
they take the old. out of date. dila pi-
dated plant which has already paid for
itself in saving money for the city
and then they count what it would
cost the city 20 produce the same
mum Der of lights with this old plant
while on the other hand the com
pany's figures are estimated from an
up to date plant This is unfair IN the
extreme. No one advocates keeping
up the lighting Of the city with the
present equipment Part of that
equipment was put in at 4 time when
the lowest bid for lighting the streets
was $3.50 per lamp per year and that
same equipment has lighted the streets
at a cost of less than S65 per year.
making the most Ilperal allowance TOT
interest. depreciation and actual cash
expenditure. And vet the Edison COM
pany put in 50 lights OF Kansas ave-
nue. in the place of % of the city's
lights and the city is paying $65 for
each of these lamps Or the city is
paying 80 times s65 or $2.OSO for an
increase of nine lamps Just as an
example of the figures used by those
crying down city ownership. the item
of deprecia ton has been given great
x-alrIa IF the figures of the ODDOSitiOn
in regard to depreciation are correct
the present plant has deprecated from
a value of SIS, 900 at time OF installa-
ton till at the present time it is worth
Just exactly $I6,37O.S5 less than moth
ing at all One can not help thinking
that if this is true the city plant has
done admirably in supplying lights on
such small investment