The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-05-14

If you are customer of the electric light corporation in this city you are
 paying more money for the lights you
 are using than you need to providing
 you have the gumption to assert your rights. This was most comprehensive ly shown at a. hearing yesterday before
 the Judiciary committee in Hartford.
 MT. A. M. Cooper of this city. one of
 the directors of the Rowland Dry
 Goods company made the bold asser- tion that when his company decided to put in plant of their own to fur
 nish light to themselves they were waited upon by an official of the electric light company and offered all of the current they would require for light for half what they paid before. They were told that they might get even better than that if they would not set up their own plant. But the Howland's concern was not to be thwarted in their plans not even when
 assured they could have the light for less than it would cost. them to manu- facture it.
 Attorney Stiles Judson who appeared for the local interests made a vigorous address in which he declared that the statute which his clients now asked to
 be repealed was unconstitutional and that it's presence acted simply as deterrent upon business men and man. ufacturers throughout the state who desired to install their own lighting plants and who might desire to sell to their neighbors their surplus current.
 MT. Cooper told the committee that the chief reason why his concern es- tablished its own private plant was because it was convinced that it was paying more for lighting purposes than others in Bridgeport. In 1900 he said his company paid the electric light corporation $5, 900, less $5, while Henry Sanford, the owner of the building in which the dry goods company is locat- ed, paid s1 800 for the lighting of the Howiand's store. The charge then was 10 cents per kilowat hour. We told the electric light people, contin- ued MT. Cooper, that we would insist upon getting our light at as cheap a figure as it was being furnished to oth- CTS. I knew of instances where light was being sold in Bridgeport cheaper than we were getting it for, but did not mention the name then and l do not care to mention it now. When we found that the company did not want to give us current cheaply as it was giving others we decided to in with the result that we reduced our bills for lighting our store by one- half.
 we have also been able to make our store more attractive by reason Of the saving we made.
 ''EM- Mayor Thomas P. Taylor who owns the building adjoining our prem ises was thinking of installing a pri- vate plant and he had an engineer give him estimates. He consulted us and found that we had a surplus of current which we could let him have without much trouble and we have for his property we arranged to sell him the surplus current. We con- sidered this transaction the same as if we sold him anything else that we had in the way of surplus.
 ''The gentlemen who comprise the electric light interests say we are law breakers because we have entered in to this arrangement with MT. Taylor. We deny this for we have been assur- ed by eminent counsel that the statute which they rely upon is unconstftu- tional. This legislation which they consider gives them the right to refer to us as law breakers was sneaked through the legislature of this state in 1893.
 "After we got our plant in good run ming order we received a visit from representative of the electric light company who offered to furnish us with all the power we needed for 5 cents per kilowat hour or less even going so far as to say that if we would stop manufacturing current they would furnish us with all we needed for less than the cost of manufacture to us. We refused to entertain the proposition and it was then that we were told that we were law breakers and etc.
 Although efforts were made upon the part of counsel s. c. Warehouse of New Haven for the electric combine to interrupt MT. Cooper who had a start ling array of facts and figures show ing what it costs to manufacture cleo tricity for lighting purposes, etc, MT. Cooper got before the committee the 1 needful information that in 1900 the city of Bridgeport paid the company | s and six-tenths cents per kilowat hour | for arc lights and to-day nine years | having elapsed they are charging the | city and 16 one-hundredths despite | the fact that there is a clause in their | contract by which they agree to make | reduction in rate proportionate with | the reduction in the cost of manufac- | turing electricity. That the cost of | manufa curing the product has been | greatly reduced was shown by MT. | Cooper who despite strenuous walls | of opposition counsel got before the | committee the information that the | report of the municipality of South | Norwalk showed that the cost of man. | ufactUring the product in that city | equalled only 2 and one-half cents per | kilowat hour.
 Judge A. B. Beers questioned MT | Cooper with relation to what powers l the Rowland Company enjoyed under | their charter the point he sought to | make being that they had no author | ity under their charter to sell electric |
 (Continued on Second Pase.)
 NOTICE TO THE PIIRTJC Tho