The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-02-14
THE. LIGHTING QUESTION.

operations July 1st, 1888, there was
much discussion in the council and
many propositions submitted for the
erection of the plant and for the supply
of lights by private corporations. In
the council proceedings published in the
Topeka State Journal January 10th,
1888, is the following minute:
IF. P. Baker, in behalf of the local
Brush Electric Light company, submit
ted a proposition to furnish the city
with 120 arc lights of 1000 candle power
each for SO per light per month for
eight hour lights, and $12 for all night
lights
This is the $4,000 proposition to which
reference was made yesterday. 1t Will
be noted that while it was $4,000 for
only eight hour lights, it was $144.O0 for
all night lights. This proposition of the
Brush Light company seems to have
been a sort of last resort, for previous
to that time, namely. on January Attn,
1888, the city clerk stated that the low
est figure submitted for electric lighting
was rs cents per light per night. This
was at the rate of $3.50 per month. or
$4,000 per year.
Frank M. Newland, present water
works commissioner, was chairman of
a committee Of the council which
visited many electric light plants in
the east, and came back in February,
1888 and made favorable report for
municipal ownership. The contract
for the plant was awarded February
9. 1888.
No bonds for electric light plant
seem to have been issued at any time,
not even when the plant was started.
until July 1, 1890, when by ordinance
No. 1165, passing the council June %,
1880, $4,000 in bonds running twenty
years. and drawing 8 per cent, were
issued ito pay in settlement for cleo
trio light plant"
The State Journal trusts that the
mayor and council will not permit
any very great delay in taking steps
to make the necessary improvements
of the city electric light plant, in or
lamps and produce the light with the
economy that new and modern ma
chinery will permit.
The city has discussed the matter
now for nearly year. Expert re-
ports were made last May. The
city can investigate for four or
five weeks. namely, until March 2s
and still the city would be able to
submit a proposition at that time
which could be acted upon at the
general city election in April.
Furthermore a lighting commission
rather than the mayor and council di-
CHI bon h.
eide on the machinery and new plant,
using of course not above certain
maximum. If the council can decide
on that maximum and have it reas-
onably close to requirements, the
ought to do the rest, If
given the chance.
No other opportunity to have a
general city election will be possible
until the following April. OF course
a special election could be called at
any time, but special election would
not draw out full expression of the
people, and Of course, is not so de-
sirable as a vote at a general election.
By the way, several councilmen, the
city engineer. and the superintendent
of the electric light plant visited st.
Joe last May at the time the lighting
was under discussion and
saw the magnificent municipal light
plant which had just been installed
there the year before. st. Joe had been
its city under the municipal
plan for seventeen years. The city de-
cided to rebuild the plant and extend it
and voted $75,00e for the purpose They
put in an entirely new building. new
engines and everything new about the
building and put the plant in shape for
the five hundred lights. $4,000 proved
too much for what they needed in the
way of plant and machinery ana an
ordinary building so they expended the
surplus in making the building more
complete in other respects, including
conduits under the building, etc. ST.
Joe is a city Of over twice the size of
Topeka and this is what 1t did. We
have a suitable building and a suitable
engine and there is little doubt but that
$50 900 would be ample for Topeka's ad-
ditional needs.
In this connection the following
editorial, written by the writer TWEEN
ty years ago, and appearing in the
State Journal, January 4, 1888 will be
of interest:
.'Our esteemed morning contem-
porary, the Commonwealth, published
by the Brush Electric Light company,
takes exception to what the State
Journal said last evening about light.
Now we are not in the electric light
business ourselves and are free to ad-
NIT that we are not experts, that we
do not know as much as the Com
monwealth does about electric light.
At the same time we cannot under
stand why careful estimates of the
cost of the arc light per hour is
about one-third of the lowest figure
the city has been able to procure from
the Brush company in this city. We
called at the city clerks office this
morning and learned that Is cents
per light per night, that is $3.50 per
month. were the lowest figures SUBJ
mitted ($270 year, The Journal