The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-02-21

to which I object, namely, the use of
assumed figures. appears in this para
graph. from the Journals Munich
pal Message" EFF the cost to the city
over IL years ago. as shown from Mr..
Myers own figures as to operation,
| interest and depreciation was
$1oO.00 (Which figures 1 neither
| made nor usedD land his own figures
snow that the average cost was $500,
it must be conclusive that the pres
| ent cost is but $4,000, as $4,000 for
the early years and $4,000 for the
later years would make an average
cost for the whole timo OF $500"
The Journal knows full well from
information taken from the city's
books which I submitted, that for a
| long period the city plant had
capacity Of but 1874 lamps and that
for another period it had a capacity
of 264 lamps and for still another
period 334 lamps, and that these va
rious capacities operated for various
periods. The Journal must therefore
know that its method of arriving at
| its Conclusions in the foregoing
calculation is at once erroneous and
misleading. 1t is easily possible to
ascertain the actual cost per lamp for
| any fixed period and there seems to
| me no necessity for presenting as
sumed figures. particularly when such
! figures do not represent the facts /
WOulO LloISIOTe ike TO kHOW WHY the
Journal used assumed figures. About
the only thing that these figures bring
out is that the Journal has reached
still another average cost per lamp
per year. Heretofore have quoted
three of the Journals claimed costs.
| three out of four such claims would
be wrong. In this case the Journal
has the distinction of being wrong in
all four instances.
[For reply see Exhibit H
So 1 say I will, not be led into a
| discussion where I am quoting from
the city's records and the Journal is
pracucing clairvoyancy, that Is to say,
it is telling the public what it thinks
1t ought to hear or whatever is nee
essary to give color to its claims, and
using such arbitrary figures as would
seem to support its "concluS1onS.'
have neither the time nor the dis
position to engage in SO fruitless a
controversy but would be glad indeed
to receive and discuss any figures
which the Journal can submit that are
founded upon either the city's rec
ords or any other RECORDS the accu-
racy Of which can be verified.
1t Is generally admitted that To-
peka's electric light plant has been
failure both financially and as street
lighting system. In fact If 1t were
success it would not be a subject
for discussion at this time. OF course
the Journal disputes this, but argu-
meut will not change the records. 1t
can continue to make claims but these
would not alter the plants history nor
change failure to success. With
which to base its claims and figures,
is it not the part Of charity to relieve
the Journal of its embarrassment and
excuse it from further attempting the
impossible? The people now know
what has been done in the past What
thew want to know is what can be-
done in the future, and they ought to
be told this before being asked to vote
on the question of issuing additional
bonds.
[For reply see Exhibit u
As the first step then in this direc-
ton, will the Journal please publish
the details which sonsttute the total
cost of $4,000 per annum for operat-
ing the proposed new 800 light plant,
as published in the. Journal February
lis So far the Journals only basis
for this probable. cost is the electric
light superintendent's willingness to
bet his salary on the result. query -
If he loses the bet, who pays? And is
this sufficient assurance on which to
invest $50, 900 more money?
Next. will the Journal please explain
how Topeka is going to produce eoo
lights at q maximum cost or $4,000 per
wear each, while Detroit with 5000
lights is unable to produce like ser
vice for less than s52.S7, with an I'M
mense modern plant, under the man
aeement of a commission. just such as
the Journal recommends, and with an
interest charge of but per cent and
only per cent per annum charged TO
depreciation.
IFor reply see Exhibit il
satisfactorily
answered the two foregoing questions
there will be others propounded from
time to time and the taxpayers thus
put in position to inteligently judge
whether it is wiser to contract LOT
street lighting OF invest whatever fur-
Their sum may be necessary TO renew
and extend the city'S plant.
The mayor is about to employ an ex-
merit to determine the cost of such re-
newal and extension and the results TO
be obtained therefrom. Ii this experts
figures prove to be as low as the Jour-
nal would like, it will heartily approve
them. If they should exceed the Jour-
naPs ideas 1t will doubtless dispute
them. the real attitude of the Journal
being I'VE must have municipal
plant'' rather than us 1t wise ana
profitable to have municipal plant
IL the Journal could put aside its sent1-
ment it would agree with me. However.
this Is not a subject to be Influenced by
sentiment. 1t is one of business, name
ly. dollars and cents to the taxpayers
[For reply see Exhibit XII
am grateful to, and sincerely thank,
the Journal for the courtesy IL mas nero
extended me.
Respectfully submitted.
L. e. MYERS.
EXHIBIT "a"
M, ,u,+or 1,rota tba article headed