The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-04-01
MORE LIGHT.

LIE report OF the COmmerc1al club
committee, appointed in February to
investigate the electric light situation,
was read at a special meeting of the
club yesterday afternoon by Chair
man Pierce and was published in last
evenings State Journal.
The committee was appointed
February 18th, by President Jensen,
under a resolution which said,
Whereas, the taxes of the city of To-
peka are already very heavy and the
people should know what they are
going to get for their money. etc.;
therefore, be it resolved, that a COM
mittee be appointed to inquire into the
matter cooperate with the city coun-
ell and find out what the city will be
able to get for its expenditures, no
definite information being available,
etc."
The report, as will be noticed by
referring to the printed copy, is a
strange one. It has certainly failed
to get this definite information"
which the Edison company has, been
clamoring for. The report, however,
will bear analysis.
The committee, from it's results.
seems to have divided itself into three
parts, Mr.. Matthews to do the fgur-
ing, Mr.. Moeser to correspond and get
prices on machinery and Mr.. Pierce to
write the comments. The committee
has evidently not been entirely har-
monious, as the figures on operating
expenses seem to be conservative, the
figures on electrical equipment"
wildly extravagant and wholly in
definite, and the comments in the re-
port inconsistent even with the deduc-
tons Of the figures. This may be ac-
countable by the fact that Mr.. Pierce
was a year ago and evidently still is
in favor of accepting an Edison COM
pany proposition, in which he may be
entirely honest as opinions differ
among our best people. Mr.. Matthews
believes the abandonment of the
municipal plant would be a mistake
and Mr.. Moeser was unable to get
itemized figures for electrical equip
ment' or to get any figures whatever
until Mr.. Myers had been conferred
with, SO he startlingly AYERS.
Let us look at this report and it's
peculiarities and inconsistencies
IL OuLuueS expenditures dSSToSdllIlS
100000 under one plan and $4,000 under
another one and it estimates that the
cost per lamp per year. under one plan,
will be $50.55 and under the other $5337.
and yet in it's recommendations makes
the incongruous statement: I'VE also
think that the price made by the Ed
ison company to the city Of Topeka,
of $55 per lamp per year, Is low, and
any arrangement the city could make
with them, on a basis of this price,
would certainly relieve them of all
hazard and responsibility. which ought
to be worth consideration
In other words, the committee finds
! that the city, even under it's extrava-
CANT figures for electrical equipment
can make the light cheaper than the
Edison company proposes to furnish 1t.
save and alone for the relief from all
hazard and responsibility
The committee failed to tell us just
how much per lamp per year it would
cost the city for responsibility" 1t
also failed to represent this item OF
responsibility in cost per lamp per
year during the last twenty years. AS
to hazard" it might have given us a
definite figure for in twenty years there
has been one hazard" one man lost
his life and the city paid damages
amounting to $500. Thus, the hazard
in twenty years has been $45 per year,
or take the average of $50 lights, per
year, for twenty years, an average cost
for hazard" of Is cents per lamp per
year.
We were unable to find on the city
records what the responsibility has
cost, but not finding that it has cost
anything in the way of definite figures
this will be ignored.
The man who was killed was a poll
tician and not an electrician. He was
put on the work on account of political
pull and his ignorance of the business
caused his death and created the city's
hazard"
The committees plan would then
stand, estimated cost per lamp per
year s50.35; IS cents for hazard" and
nothing for Responsibility" making a
grand total of $50.43.
The astounding part of the report
which was designated by member of
the club yesterday as being complete
and comprehensive is the item for cleo
trical equipment which is not itemized
not definite but put in bulk at 1928, $685.
Why not put this at $4,000 or $4,000 OF
any old figure? We will see why. One
| of the commissioners himself has made
the astounding announcement Mr.
George Mosier upon being asked by a
State Journal reporter this morning
why he did not itemize these figures
made the startling statement that he
had written to the General Electric
conpany for itemized figures but was