The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-06-01
LIGHTING THE CITY
EX-MayOr Harrison Discusses
the Situation.
No Reason Why Municipality
Can Not Furnish Lights.
WOULD BE BAD PLAN.
Discarding City Plant Like
Farmer Abandoning Farm.
Principle of Municipal Owner
ship Is at Stake.

To the Editor of the State Journal
The subject of city lighting is OF sur
ficient Importance to merit much care
full thought by the people OF Topeka
1t is not a new question For mSnS
years a private corporation has peer
trying to induce the city to abandon IL
lighting plant and turn the business
over to the corporation under contract
The city does no commercial hgnt-hS
and does not interfere with the COM
mercial business of the corporation
but on the other hand gave it CHAR
Ter of great value without any COM
pensation TO the city. The city plahl
was established about Is years ago.
In the last ten years great I'M
provements have been developed IN
electrical lighting. A proposition is now
before the city to issue bonds in the
sum of s65. 600. for the purpose of equip
ping the plant with new and modern
machinery and lights and to increase
the number of lights from $50 TO ooO.
The private corporation sees in this a
golden opportunity to get rid OF the
city plant. and proposes to make con-
tract with the city for ten years. 10
furnish 500 street lights at 500 a hshe
per year. That would be SZl'9uo per
That would give the private corpora a
ton a complete monopoly in electric
lighting and at the end of the ten
years the city would De aDSoidtelS a
the mercy of that monopoly.
The arguments used by the corpora
ton in favor of the contract are that
the private corporation can furilsh the
lights much cheaper than the city pos
sibly, can and the abhorrent feature %
issuing more bonds. The trst argument
is a sad commentary on the business
ability of our mayor and councllmen-
We select our mayor and couhclIHeh
from the very best business men in the
If the people do not elect men VINO
will manage the business OF the city
inst as skiIIfuIIy and economically as
private corporation can then that Is
our own fault.
The CITY can furnish the lighting
much cheaper than any private cor
poration can. The corporation expects
to. and would make a profit on the
business of from ten to twenty dollars
per light per year. They are IN IL Ior
profit the city would save. The city
paws no taxes on its own property, and
hence would make a saving there OF
course the corporation pays taxes on
its property, but its contract WITH the
city would not likely be listed for tax
alton, and their argument in favor Of
cheaper service is that they now have
an adequate plant and all the neces- |
sary help to furnish the lights to the
city The horror of issuing more bonds /
is not good argument for the corpor- |
ation to use If they wanted to mod |
ernie their plant, they would do just |
what the city is proposing to do, issue /
more bonds to raise the money to do |
It with. They would not have the
cash on hand any more than the city /
would. If they had then there is too |
much profit in their business, and it /
ought not to be increased by a con- |
-ract with the city. Such prime neces-
stiles as water and light out not to be
subjects of profit to any one. They |
should be furnished by the city to the
people at actual cost The people
foted by a large majority in favor of