The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1908-01-21
COUNTY LIGHT
BILL MYSTERY
Citizens Company Makes
Salty Charges.
LETTER TO REVENUE BOARD
Says County Did Not Get Lowest
Contract Possible.
Member. Of Board of Revenue WIN Not
Discuss Matter--PsbIic Not
Advised Of Nature Of
Contract.

In letter to the Board of Revenue.
filed with that body yesterday morning.
the Citizens Heat, Light and Power
Company severely scores the action of
the Board In giving the lighting con-
tract to the Montgomery Light and
Water Power Company. Not only does
the first named company intimate that
II has not been given a square deal, but
figures are given TO back up claims
that the county is paying more money
for its lights than 1t would, had the
contract been given to the Citizens
Company at the time of the bid
One of the allegations in the letter
Is that the bid of the Citizens Company
was 20 per cent lower than that of sthe
Montgomery Light and Water Power
Company and 46 per cent lower than
the rate the county had been paying.
and three times the rate Of the United
States Government The fact that one
member OF the committee of the Board
appointed to secure contract is di-
rector in the Montgomery Light and
Water Power Company was emphati-
cally mentioned.
When asked about Mr. Writings let.
ter. Naham Griel, who is the member
of the Board of Revenue referred to as
director of the Light and Water Pow
err Company, said that he had nothing
to say.
The letter Is as follows:
ITO the Honorable Board of Revenue:
Having just been informed that you
have made a ten-year contract with the
Montgomery Light and Water Power
Company for the county lighting, the
Citizens Light. Heat and Power Com
pany does hereby protest against your
action on the following grounds;
l. The bid of the Citizens Light, Heat
and Power Company. made in response
to your request for sealed proposals.
was 20 per cent lower than the bid OF
the Montgomery Light and Water Pow
err Company, made in the same way,
and 46 per cent lower than the price
which you have been paying to that
company.
2. After the -4iscrion of the bids Of
both companies, while your Board was
in executive session, on the ground that
lower prices than either OF said bids
were being made by the Montgomery
Light and Water Power, Company to
other consumers, negotiations for better
prices were placed by you In the hands
OF a committee, one member of which
is director of the Montgomery Light
and Water Power Company.
3. No request was made for sealed
bids from the competing companies,
after the rejection of the first bids but
l,the contract for lighting was awarded
al result OF negotiations between the
Montgomery Light and Water Power
Company and the committee OF your
Board one member of which 10 a direc-
tor in said Montgomery Light and Wa
ter Power Company.
4. The contract made by you with
the Montgomery Light and Water Pow
er Company does not give the county
as low price as that company has been
giving to other consumers. both public
and private, taking less current and on
shorter term contracts, and is 20 per
higher than the rate for current for
lighting and three times the rate
charged for current for power to the
United States Government on one
year contract. the Government contract
being awarded without favor to the
lowest bidder on bids opened publicly
at stated time. Respectfully,
p. r. Whiting,
Manager.
As far as can be learned, the county
contract for lighting has been let to
the Montgomery Light and Water Pow.
err Company for a period of ten years.
The contract WAS made by the special
cuTrmittee appointed for that purpose.
/ Some time ago the Board Of Revenue