The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-02-21
A ..MuNIc1PAL. MESSAGE.

A few weeks ago the Topeka Edi.
son company renewed its proposition
made last year to furnish street
lights for the city of Topeka at the
rate Of $500 per lamp per year fol
500 arc lights, equal to $27,500 pei
annum.
The acceptance of this would mean
the abandonment of the present city
electric light plant, the confession OF
the failure of the municipality to
light the city and the admission thai
it was costing the city OF Topeka
more than $500 to make it's own
light, and would cost the city for the
next period of five or ten years, as
might be covered by contract, more
than $500 per lamp per year If the
city continued to produce its own
light.
The State Journal strenuously OPP
posed the Edison company's PROPOSE
ton last year. The mayo- and coun-
Gil declined or postponed the pro-
posal. During the past few weeks
the Topeka Edison company's able
president, Mr.. L. E. Myers. has tried
to convince the State Journal of it's
error, and has renewed efforts with
the council in whose hands the $500
proposition is now under considera-
ton.
In discussing matters with the edi-
tor of this paper. and in response to
various requests for Information put
by him to Mr.. Myers. a series of let
tiers to the writer have been written
b. he af
pany endeavoring to .substantiate his
proposition that municipal lighting in
Topeka has been failure and the
city should accept his proposal.
These letters, seven in number,
and running from two to twenty
pages each, and with much statistical
information, cover the failures, or
alleged failures, of municipal lighting
plants in some forty or fifty other
cities; cover a careful and comprehen-
sive statement Of the cost of operation
and maintenance. including interest
and depreciation, of the Topeka plant
during its nineteen years career.
adducing the alleged cost to the city
of each lamp per year.
These letters and figures from Mr..
Myers have failed to shake this pa
per's convictions and stand during
the past twenty years for a municipal
lighting plant, its lower cost and
other advantages to the city for the
present and the future.
In this argument We will use Mr..
Myers own figures and compilations,
differing from him almost solely in
his deductions and conclusions and
agreeing with him in many. We will
undertake to show conclusiyely and
clearly that the city has saved much
money in the past by doing it's own
lighting, is producing the same today
for less than Mr.. Myers proposition.
$500 per lamp per year, and can
continue to produce the light for less
money and furnish the 500 lights de-
sired.
Practically all of the figures sub
mitted have since last Friday evening
means committee of the council and
other members of the council and
are still placarded on large sheets
of paper on the walls of the ways and
committee room in the city
building.
1t must be admitted that Mr..
Myers and his assistants have taken
great pains and used particular care
to present accurate information on
the conduct of the city electric light
plant.
1t must be admitted, too, that the
manner of their presentation in these
letters and along the same lines in
Mr.. Myers talk before the city coun-
Gil were on their face wer1nigh con-
and calculated to sustain the
Edison company's proposition as one
which could not be gainsaid.
But careful analysis and inyesti-
CATION prove the contrary. Despite
the effort of Mr.. Myers to show that
the lights are costing the. city SIS. so
per lamp per year, they are costing
the city today only $3.50 per lamp
per year. and should cost the city
with a more modern plant very much