The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-04-04

cent bonds is $1.40O, charging per
cent or for depreciation. makes an
other $1.400, or q total cost OF &c.
500, dividing this by 1874 lights gives
fraction over $50 per lamp per year
fol. the actual cost to the city.
1.-THE committee in figuring the
cost has figured that we are paying
interest on $4,000. AS matter of
fact, we are doing nothing of the kind
for the reason that out of the $4,000
that has been expended on the plant
Tor machinery material building,
etc., all but $4,000 has been paid.
This committee estimates that 1t will
cost the city $4,000 to equip its plant
anew to produce five hundred lights.
The electric light commission esti-
mates that it will not need more than
$4,000 to put the plant in first class
shape to produce five hundred lights
economically. I have just as much
confiden in Robt. Cofran, Herbert
Hackney and w. w. Mills as have
in Robt. Pierce, G. H. Matthews and
George Moeser. They are all good
citizens. but the Commercial club
committee has been handicapped In
getting some Of its figures. 1t has
not yet produced the ftemized estf-
mate for electrical equipment which
it puts in bulk at $4,000.
company's latest proposition and fur
nish the Edison company with the
poles and wires now in use. it will
still have to pay for those 400 lights,
$4,000 per year. (If it uses 500
lights. it will have to pay $4,000
plant, the expenses will be as follows,
using the Commercial club com
mittee's figures on operating expenses
per year, $4,000. the interest on our
outstanding bonds for the light plant.
$4,000 at per cent is s1.4oo more.
which is $4,000 more than the light
commission says is necessary, the in
terest will be $4,000, making q total
amount necessary to raise each year
of $1S.400. or $1,000 less than the
Edison company will furnish those
400 lights for, ($6.600 less than 500
lights would cost by contract.) In
other words, the city could set aside
annually $4,000 as a sinking fund and
still pay out less than the Edison
lights will cost us and in eight years
we would have paid off the $4,000
bonds and interest, and have the new
investment to show for itself.
eft is ridiculous to talk about saving
taxes by contract for the light. The
light must be paid for out of taxes
anyway and there would be less to pay
in taxes If the city makes it's own
light. If the city should issue $4,000
in bonds, to put its plant in first class
shape, it needs to raise no more money
to cover this interest than it is expend-
ing now, for today it is paying the
Edison company $500 per light per
year for 81 lights on Kansas avenue.
That is $1,000 for this light which it
would produce itself with the new
equipment. This is $4,000 more than
the interest, $4,000 on $4,000 in
bonds.
II regret that this committee Of the
Commercial club which is looking
after the welfare and protecting the
interest of the city, has not a single
word to say in it's report for the mu-
nicipal light plant which has saved
this city SO many thousand dollars in
the last few years and has produced
light for less money than corporations
were willing to furnish it.
1.-The electric light plant is ham
pered in every way, and yet 1t is pro-
at a cost Of about 5000 per year, than
the Edison company Is furnishing for
$1,000 on Kansas avenue, and when
you leave this building tonight you can
compare the lights onsKansas avenue
with those on the other streets and see
that this is true: not that the Edi-
son company can not produce so good
a light, but it simply does not, wheth-
er from the lack Of candle power, or
otherwise.
"The city electric light plant wires
are cut square1y in two in the middle
by the Edison current on Kansas ave-
nue. and the city is thus compelled to
operate two sections. instead of COM
pacting its service
In anything that this writer may
have said last evening at the CONNER
cia1 club he wants it distinctly under
stood that he is making no attack upon
anyone personally. He has the very
highest respect for many of the off,
Gals, stockholders and employees of the
CT rof mi
and they are not to be blamed for do
ing the best they can to secure good
contracts for the Edison company, but
the public should understand that much
Of this effort is not due to any desire
to further the interests Of Topeka first
in the matter, but the natural desire to
first benefit their own interests In
which they have financial investments,
or for which they are employed as at
torneys to act. Even acting for their
personal interests. these same gentle
men and others not interested in the
companies may honestly believe that it
is better to abandon the plant and hire
the light. There Is an honest differ
ence OF opinion On that point, but 1t is
necessary for the public to know some
Of these circumstances to draw correct
conclusions. These people, all Of them,
are heart and soul interested in the
growth and welfare Of Topeka. Many
Of their valuable time and money for
the city's improvement and mention is
here made of ore gentleman, Mr.. M. A
Low, who has probably more than any
one else aided in the formation and ex-
tension of our parks, but Is against
municipal ownership and has a duty as
director in one OF Mr. Myers company.
The welfare Of Topeka is near to all
of our hearts, but the personal equa-
ton will affect US all; it is human ma
ture. The State Journal thinks, how
ever, that the masses of the people in
this case can best stand by the city by
defending and improving its municipal
light plant and not permit the Edison
company, splendid industry, to crush
out and throttle another good industry,
the municipal light plant.