The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1911-03-14
ELECTRIC LIGHTING
Opposition to the Municipal Ownership
of an Electric Light Plant.

peared before the I0uf1cn 10 protest
against municipal ownership. It was
held by them that light is being fur
rished by the local company at lower
rates than is furnished in other cities,
which is not disputed, bit it is also a
fact that this statement does not prove
that Shreveport can have its lighting
much lover than the rates fixed by the
local plant
The committees favors a six years
contract with the local plant at the rate
submitted to the Council, to-wit, $6S.oo
for arc lights and 9 lac per kilowatt to
consumers using less than 900 kilowatts
per month.
Practically the rates to consumers are
unchanged. The rates now prevailing
are 10 1-4c less 10 per cent discount,
which is equivalent to 9 1-4c. The rates
which would govern a six years contract
would be 9 I-4c for the consumers.
The committee which appeared be-
fore the Council recently were repre-
senting the consumers. They have ex-
hibited estimates from reliable authori-
ties which has not been contradicted.
The duty of the Council is plain. II
the Council would be fair to all con-
cerned the Council should agree to en-
ploy an expert electrical engineer whose
report on. the cost of such plant in
Guiding its maintenance would deter
mine if it would profit Shreveport to
engage in electric lighting.
The contract for lighting should be
limited 10 one year so that if il should
be shown that Shreveport could acquire
and operate an electric light plant with
out loss, then such action as would be
necessary could be instituted to secure
the means through an issue of bonds.
If the city electric light plant could
not be installed and operated in one
year the local company contract could
be extended another year.
1t would certainly be unfair to pre-
sumo that the city could not acquire and
operate lighting plant at rates much
less than is offered BY the lighting COM
pa1y, and il is the duty Of the commits
sioners an dthe mayor to- try earnestly
to demonstrate this problem.
1t is easy to say IT can not be done
or to say I'm opposed to municipal
ownership # there be any commits
sioner who can not consistently do his
full duty to the city, without some re-
straint suggested by friendship for
some one connected with the lighting
plant, then such commissioner should
step down and out.
1t would seem to be the plain duty of
every commissioner, in case Of any
doubt, to lean to the city and to the peo-
pie, instead of hesitating perhaps in
favor of the corporation.
1t had been reported that the repre-
sentatiyes of the local plant had in
former Mayor Eastman that they would
not again meet the committee on citi-
zens on Wednesday afternoon in the
city hall TO confer with them on the
lighting question While this statement
may have been viewed as discredit to
the committee, it simply provoked the
risibles of the committee who are SEN
sible men and have frequently heard and
seen the flash of political thunder. How
ever, the letter following explains it
self:
Hon. John Eastman, Mayor, Shreve-
port, La. Dear Sir-At meeting of
the committee appointed by yourself to
confer with US in regard to a lighting
contract for the city of Shreveport, it
was suggested that we meet again for a
further conference on Wednesday,
March IS. Inasmuch as this company
has submitted final bids to the properly
constituted authorities of the city, and
as said bids should be formally consid-
cred before the date for the meeting of
this committee, we believe that nothing
can be accomplished by such confer
ence and respectfully ask that you
would excuse us from attending. Yours
| respectfully, S. 6. E. L. & P. co.
A. G. Curtis, Gen. Mgr
II may be said in this connection that
the three gentlemen representing til,
consumers will be at the city hall at I