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

ago 10 supply lights for $500 per
light.
EXHIBIT "F."
The plain answer to the statements
made in the part of Mr. Myers article
to which this exhibit is reply is that
Mr. Myers misquotes the article in the
State Journal of May 25th. He says
that on May 25th last the State Journal
stated that "the cost of street lighting
Tor the previous ten years had been
1884" The writer has Just referred to
the State Journal article in its issue
Tor May 25th. 1907, and notes that the
paper was careful to say: These fig-
ures show the cash cost of the lights to
De 1884 per lamp per year" This is
repeated again in another part Of the
same article. Mr.. Myers omits the
word cash" and would have the reader
infer that the State Journal gave 1884
as the total cost per lamp per year. On
the other hand the State Journal said
In the very next sentence from which
Mr. Myers, consciously or unconscious
~ garDles the quotation. that another
element brings the cost up to SOL Co.,"
This is remarkably close to the State
Journals other figures given in this is
sue today and quoted from the munich
pal message Of last Friday at $5283., In
Its discussion last May the State Jour-
nal was careful to say, Giles for May 8,
1907 that the cost, 1884, was accord
Ing to the reports of the superintendent
what the plant has required in cash, a
certain average for the last ten years.
The cash cost" of course could not in
clude interest. depreciation nor taxes
lost, and did not pretend to- include
them. The figures, $52.83, did include
them. In regard to the $500 figure
which Mr.. Myers says was submitted to
MIN FEBRUARY 18th there is this to be
said:
On the Saturday on which Mr.. Myers
says the $65 were given him the writer
had not completed his Investigation by
several days, but told Mr.. Myers that
ne was fully convinced in his own mind
that the city could this year of 1906
make its own light with its present
plant for less than $50. and that it did
not cost the city during the past year
over 500, and in reaching the $6S
amount the writer accepted Mr.. Myers
figures of $40. or rather $41.87, as the
average operating expense for nine
years past. and add Sill for interest
$l1 for depreciation and 81 for taxes
lost. making $ee; The writer at thai
time, however. did not clearly see the
Joker In Mr.. Myers interest and de-
probation figures. He took the depre.
citation for the past year as one
eighteenth for the entire depreciation
and the interest at one eighteenth 70,
uary 1, 1908. Our errors lay in the fact
that we assumed, as Mr.. Myers had In
his figures, that the city had in its
plant year ago $4,000, when as a mat
ter Of fact it only had $27,500 All the
rest of 1t had been charged in and
counted into the cost of the lamps In
the past as depreciation, and the de-
probation and the interest as vel
should have been figured as only pei
cent on $27,600; very different from
per cent on $S9, 70 .l3 s.sia-,sf1a;'-
We used Mr.. Myers figures $4,000
or $41.S7 because he convinced US that
our figures of year ago, 1894
were probably wrong due to an error
in Mr.. Goodrich's nine year report
We accepted Myers fgures-little diff
ference.