The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1907-09-10
ITEMS NOT CHARGED
Strange Omissions In the Chicago
Lighting Plant Report.

1t Places the Annual Total Cost Per
Lamp at $52.s9-No Account Taken,
However, of Lost Taxes, Water, De-
probation, Rent or of Half a Dozen
Other Important Elements of Ex-
Pense-siesest M. o. Plant In the
ceuntry-Its Service as Poor az Its
Report Is Misleading.
The largest municipal electric light
plant in the United States is that OPP
Grated by the city OF Chicago. Natu-
rally students of municipal ownership
turn to its reports as one OF the priu-
cipal sources of information on the
subject. Unfortunately. however, these
reports have been so worded as to
give the false impression that the
municipal lights cost the city much less
than If they were supplied by contract
with private company
Newspapers all over the country have
announced that ChicaSos street lights
during 1906 cost only $J2.30 per lamp,
and they are not to be blamed for MAX
ing this assertion. for twice on page
IL of the report for that year $3.50
Is given as the total cost per lamp"
1t IS true that elsewhere in the report
this statement is modified by the ad-
mission that this cost" doesn't in
clude interest, lost taxes. water, de
probation, rent Of offices and poles,
judgments against the city on account
of accidents, proportion of the cost
of the offices OF the comptroller, audi
tor, business agent and other branches
Of the city government etc, but the
edge is taken off this admission by
the further statement that "the cost of
$3.50 includes all expenses actually
borne by the city" a statement, by
the way. which Is not even technically
frye: ss5F 20 IS So ltgs
The report admits that ''there is some
justice in the Contention that these
Items should be charged against the
lighting cost, but it makes this admis-
sion only after years of refusal to do
so, and does so now because Of an in
vestigation into the workings Of the
plant that has recently been made, and
the findings Of which will soon be pub
lshed. 1EssssA-ssEEss 2ssISslaH--
Six years ago the Reform club of
New York employed u well known
firm of accountants to find out what
Chicago's lights were really costing At
that time the city claimed u cost of
$62.09, but the accountants reported
the real cost as S99SS and made no
allowance for damages. street repairs,
rent of Offices and poles or the lighting
departments share OF the expense for
auditing, purchasing and legal ext
penSes aud u very low allowance for
depreciation. But the city authorities
totally ignored the findings OF this dis
Interested and expert Investigation.
The unfairness Of the report Is fur
ther shown by its comparison of the
per capita cost OF lighting Chicago and
five other cities that do not operate |
lighting plants. In the first
place, the street lighting OF Chicago is |
Inadequate, and in the sec |
ond place. while the rates in the other |
cities cover the entire cost OF lighting, |
In Chicago they include only u fraction
II the cost: 1
Perhaps the most misleading faatt1re /
Or the report Is its comparison OF the
alleged cost OF the municipal lights
with the rates charged by the private
with which the city contracts
Tor T46 OF its lamps. These are in the
OF the city, where the cost of
them Is very high on ac-
count of their long distance from the
station and their remote
less from each other. That Is why the
:ity contracts for them. Yet the report
that the company would
.harge just as high rate IL it had the
for all the lights. This as
Is not only manifestty absurd,
Tut Is directly contrary to the facts, as
me Of the companies offered a reduc-
ion OF more than cne-Quarter OF its
ontract price If it were given the en-
ire lighting contract.
In making comparisons tie quality
{ the service Is an important cnsid-
ration, and the service of the Chicago
ity plant Is bod. 1t cheats the public
9th by the frequency Of outaGes
amps going out aud staying out the
est OF the night and by stealing its
wn current. e.. reducing the ampeT. s
&c below the point at which the cur {
ent keeps the lamps up to their rated {
lndLepower. In many cases observers
ave noted that. especially after mid 6
light, the lamps give only dull glow
the carbon points and are OF practf- ,
ally no value rs lights This is done
} reduce coal consumption and of
purse makes n great difference in the !
ost OF operation. 1t would not be toll !
rated from private company. which :
'ouid also be penalized for outages. =
hese things are quite naturally not :
Ientioned In the report.
To sum up, the report gives the i'm :.
resslon to the casual reader that the :
unicipal plant is giving good service =
low cost, while the facts are that
8 service is poor and that the cost Is v
UGH higher than II the lights were y
applied by company. P