The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1911-08-24

az o@@tRNaA(C VI ~
proposition requiring the Consumers
company TO give a certain amount OF
Tree current and TO pay a percentage
OF Its revenues TO the city. II is true
h a u electric light plant at pres
ent Is not producing light at a rate
as low as $4,000 per year. but II is
also true that we can by the expendi-
ture OF a small sun OF money enable
II TO produce light at a ate even
lower than $1,000 per year per light.
/ want TO 40 or record as asserting
that by expanding about $4,000 for
~re-winding the dynamoes and about
the same mount OF money for a new
and improved series of lamps We can
produce electric light in this city and
with our present plant at a rate Of
not more thar $500 per year per
lamp. This would be less than the
rate proposed by the Consumers. IL
would save the city money as COM
pared with the Consumers offer. and.
in addition. 1t will preserve to the
city its valuable lighting property, a
franchise and a business which | do
not think should be surrendered by
this city at any time. With equal JUS
uce. some one might come along here
and propose to take the business OF
conducting the city's fire department
on its hands. on the ground that they
could do IL cheaper. How long would
the citizens OF Wheeling seriously
consider such a proposition? am
amazed that there has been delay in
deciding what we will do with the
two propositions made by the Con-
sumers' Electric Light company. /
am also surprised that some opposi-
ton has been manifested in the
finance committee TO the suggestion
that the city's electric light plant
should be moderniZed and improved.
One member of council even went so
far as TO say that the electric light
plant was a junk heap. Now. | know
something about electricity and street
lighting. n | know hat by the ex-
penditure of not more thar Sl2.O 900
We can save on our present lighting
expense a great deal more than
Sl2.0o0.O0 every ear We a save
in the expenditure for carbons alone
from 100000 % 100000 per year.
Ne can a in help from 100000
TO 100000 per year. and other expen-
ditures would be also materially re-
NNN'GH 'ANh btAhE Aht NdTf ny
in the world should there be delay
about making this sensible and much
needed improvement?
Contract Involved.
Another thing occur to me in that
connection. That is. that the Con
sumers' proposition TO light the
streets involves a ten-year contract.
Considering the progress that has
been made in recent years in the mat.
tiers OF street lighting and in the re-
duction OF the cost of same. il would
be the greatest folly Tor this city and
for any other city TO tie itself up
on a ten-year contract. In less tina
ten years from now the expenses of
electric lighting will be largely re-
duced. and the city ought to keep IT,
self in a position TO take advantage OF
all reductions. The time has long
since past for us 10 take action on
this matter. ] am frank TO say that
! do rot understand the necessity for
the delay that has already occurred OF
the necessity for any further delay.
and | intend to urge upon the other
members OF the Board of Control and
upon council generally:
First. the acceptance OF the first
proposition OF the Consumers Elec.
trio company. namely. the free light
for the city's properties and the cash
commission on its
Second. "a reasonable appropriation
for the rehabilitation OF our lighting
plant.
Let us have this. and with the
money that We are spending now We
can put in the city some $50 and $50
lights. We can adjust them 10 the
needs of every locality. We can in
crease our lighting capacity over -
per cent. and still save the city money
as compared with the Consumers
proposition