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

LE TOPEKA DAILY STATE
! plant in Syracuse and secure a copy of
that committees report, and will 1t
publish that also?
I will now touch upon some of the
statements appearing in "a Municipal
| Message as published in the Journai
February 18th, the first paragraph OF
which is typical of the entire article.
renewed it's proposition made last
year. This is entirely wrong. Since
su bmitting its original propositions,
the Edison company has in no way re-
newed or amended the same. What
It did do was to make an audit OF the
city's books so as to ascertain the past
cost of street hghting-and nothing
more. This action was taken at this
time because there was pending be-
fore the city council the question of
issuing s50,0O0.00 additional bonds
with which to rehabilitate the present
plant. No plans having been prepared
upon which any estimate of cost could
be based, and there being no evil
dence that better results could be OBJ
tanned in the future than in the past,
thought. and still think, that before
authorizing such an expenditure 1t was
proper to know what the money was
to be spent for and what results could
be accomplished with such expendi-
ture, q line of thought natural to any
prudent business man but generally
undesirable in connection with NUM-
cipal electric lighting plants.
For reply see Exhibit E.
In the next paragraph Of its edf7
torial the Journal urges the city not
to confess it's failure. Why not ?
Many other cities have done so and
Topeka's experience in the lighting
business is no different than that of
other cities, so why not admit the
truth and make it unanimous?
The Journal says it 'strenuously
opposed the Edison company's propo-
25th last it stated that the cost of
street lighting for the previous ten
years had been $39.S4 per lamp per
year. In the editorial to which this
Is an answer, this appears: Despite
the effort of Mr.. Myers to show that
the lights are costing the city $3.50
per lamp per year, they are costing
the city only $52.S3 per lamp per
year.. On Saturday afternoon, Feb.
Sth, Mr.. MacLennan submitted fig
ures to the writer by which he show
ed the cost to be $4,000. Which of
now prefer. namely that published
May 25th last, s39.s4, that Of Feb.
Sth, $4,000 or that Of Feb. 18th,
s52.S3? Notwithstanding the Jour
nails estimates vary with its necesst-
ties, it should not submit so many diff
ferent figures for the same item. 1t
would help the people to understand
If the Journal would reach one con-
c1usion and stick to it, and also en-
able the people to know what it
wishes them to accept as the cost,
because there is no more ground for
taking its last figures as correct, than
those published last May which the
Journal then said were Detailed
Facts About Cost Of the Light"
The statement that the writer tried
to convince the State Journal of Its err
ror' is absolutely true. Aside from any
selfish motive which may have prompt
ed such an herculean undertaking, the
writer was moved from sense of duty.
1t is an old saying that "a little know
ledge is a dangerous thing"-and this is
especially true where 1t is vested with
great power and the writer hoped
through the education of the Journal
to spread the gospel of truth to its
multitude of readers and thus bring the
facts to the attention OF the taxpayers
of Topeka.
If no other good comes from this eff
fort, the fact that previously published
and circulated costs have been proven
to be wholly erroneous has of itself
done much good. in that it has awaken
fact that its venture into the field Of
street lighting has been very costly
experiment.
IFor reply see Exhibit FL
The Journal acknowledges my letter
reciting the failure of municipal light
ing plants in about 60 other cities. In
+ uoJl fnE int nryf
municipal lighting plant failures to any
one successful plant to which anyone
can refer" I am still of that opinion,
and having quoted go failures I would
like to know where the six successful
plants are, in fact the publication or
that letter would doubtless be both in
teresting and enlightening to the peo-
pie of Topeka, who are entitled to know
all and judge for themselves.
The Journal further said. I'VE only
differ in our deductions and conclu-
sions' and then added that 1t would
undertake to show that the city has
saved much money in the past by doing
its own lighting and is now producing
the same for less than $50 per lamp
per year and can continue to do so. !"
1t then presented innumerable figures,
essential to Its contentious, but not
based on facts, and used them to suit
its purpose by drawing erroneous con-
illusions therefrom. At my first inter
view with the Journal offered to sub
NIT facts and figures which would prove
the cost of street lighting to have been
almost double the amount popularity
believed to have been the cost, attach
ing to this offer only one condition.
towit: that the Journal should not re-
peat its unfair practice OF last May.
namely, contradicting facts and figures
with mere assertions and claims, but
that such facts and figures as I would
submit would, if disputed at all, be
met with other facts and figures of like
record and equal integrity. This the
Journal unqualifiedly agreed to. It is
therefore surprising to find in its 'Mun-
icipaI Message that almost every fig
ure used except where mine are quo
ted, is entirely and absolutely assumed