The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-05-25
COunciImen Reluctant to Aban-
don Lighting Plant.
Would Submit Proposition at
an Election.
APPROVED PURCHASE.
What Would People Now Say
About Sale.
That Is Question Council Would
Ascertain Before Acting.

The question of contracting for the
street lights has the city council bad
" in the air. The question is one
about which information is pretty
scarce to the ordinary man and the
figures are so voluminous that not
many citizens have the time nor the
chance to get them and go over them.
The members of the council have ex-
pressed themselves as being generally
in favor of the municipality owning
their plant.
Councilman Van Ness from the
First ward says: Il am in favor of
municipal ownership. At first when
the proposition was made by the Edi-
son company 1 thought that we ought
TO accept it but after considering the
matter further 1 have changed my
mind. 1 have been trying to find out
what the citizens at large think about
the matter. l do not think that we
twelve men ought to decide this thing
without knowing, what the people
owning the plant once and 1 do not
think that that vote ought to be over
ridden unless the people want the vote
reconsidered and they ought to vote
on the matter again. At any rate a
mass meeting of citizens ought to be
called and the people given a chance
to express themselves if they are in
terested enough to attend"
Councilman Kutz of the Fifth ward
also expresses himself in favor of |
municipal ownership. He says: 81
am in favor of the city owning their |
to the company it ought not to be |
done without giving the people a |
chance to reconsider their vote to own 1
the plant. If they do not wish to re-
to be let. The city has made a mighty
good thing out of the waterworks
plant and this Notwithstanding the
fact that they paid too big a price for
Ne L
the light plant. 1 am not in favor of
trying to run a cheap plant for this
does not pay. 1 am in favor of fixing
the plant up into first class shape in
every respect and then doing the
thing like it ought to be done. We
cannot get good results out of a bad
Or a cheap plant.
81 do not know about the legal Ques-
ton as to whether the council can take
the matter up after the people voted
to own the plant and turn the contract
over to a company in direct opposition
to the vote of the people. A new vote
ought to be had before that is done"
]. w. F. Hughes of the Sixth ward
spoke in even more forcible terms con-
corning his belief that the city could
make n paying proposition out of a
really first class plant. He said: .I
favor municipal ownership and think
that the city can run their plants to
advantage. There seems to be diff
ference, however, between electricity
]
takes an expert for mana cement 1t
can not be managed without a COM
petent. very competent manager to !
take care of it. The city can not run
the plant and make a success of it un-
less they hire the very best men in the
business just as any other business
proposition is run If the city was as
particular about the success of the
electric light plant as they are about
the keeping up of our splendid fire de-
partment we would be making money
and be in shape to compete with any
company. But I am in favor of letting
the Edison company take the contract
unless we can get a good plant and do
the thing right. There is no reason
why we could not make as good
thing of the electric light plant as of
the water plant. We can do it by get
ting first class machinery. first class
men to run it and then taking the
management of 1t out of politics.
Several inquiries have been made as
to the cost of the lights to the city in
the last few years with the old plant
The impression seems to be general
that the lights have been costing the
city big figure. This is not correct
The State Journal of May % gave the
figures exactly as given by the super
intendent of the light plant in his re-
ports to the council. These figures