The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1912-07-09
Citizens Directing to the
City's Refusal to Pay Mu-
nicipal Plant for the Light
ing of Streets.
BIG PATRON LOST
TO CITY'S PLANT
Elliott-Reid Fence Company
Objects to the Administra-
tion's Attitude Toward the
Municipal Plant.

The municipal lighting and power
plant has lost one of its largest con-
sumers, the Elliott-Reed Fence COM
pany, principally for the refusal of
the Zimmerman administration to pay
the plant for street lighting. which
amounts to the tidy sum of over $780,
600 year.
The fence company is now a patron
of the city plants competitor, and the
city plant, in consequence, it is reli-
ably reported. is a loser to the extent
of about $4,000 a year.
Walter V. Reid. president and sup
erintendent of the Elliott-Reid COM
pany, this morning frankly admitted
the company had withdrawn it's pa
tronage of the municipal plant. He
said that several causes entered into
the action taken by the company, but
the principal reason was the admins
tration's method of conducting the
plant.
Views of Mr.. Reid.
''The city can not expect to make
an effective appeal to the patriotism
of its citizens in supporting the mu-
nicipal plant so long as present con-
ditions exist Both large and small
consumers are entitled to a rate re-
duction, which can not be accomplish
ed so long as the plant is conducted
as it is now," state Mr.. Reid to the
Palladium.
This statement was made by Mr..
Reid in response to a question as to
whether he did not believe the city
should pay the municipal plant for
street lighting.
From inquiries made all over the
city by the Palladium, it has been re-
| vealed that the Elliott-Reid company
is not alone in the position it has
adopted in regard to the municipal
plant ANY number of light and power
consumers have stated that the city's
| refusal to pay for its street lighting is
not only unfair to the plant itself, but
! to the citizens who are patrons of the
plant
| Those questioned on the subject all
pointed out that under the present
system of compelling the municipal
plant to light the streets gratis, the
patrons of the city plant were carry
ing this burden on their shoulders
There is no special tax for street light
ing, consequently the patrons of the
city plants competitor are not con
tributing one cent toward street il
Elimination. Because of the burden OF
lighting the streets, without recon-
pense, the city plant finds it impossi
BILE to reduce it's rates.
A Protest Planned.
Several business men have been dis
cussing plan for launching a genera
protest against the administration
attitude toward the municipal plant
and to take the matter before council
and demand that the city pay the city
plant for street lighting.
The ADMINISTRATORS only reason as
signed for it's refusal to play fair with
the municipal plant is that the city
cannot afford to meet this expense
However, when the budget for this
year was made up last fall there wa:
no attempt made to provide a fund fol-
street lighting. The mayor recent,
stated that the 1913 tax rate would bt
raised at the council budget meetins
this fall, but he did not go on record
as to whether the city plant woulc
benefit by such action. There is {
possibility that the administration will
stubbornly hold out against the pro
posed relief of the municipal plant be
cause of the deplorable condition o
the city's finances. which have grown
more tangled each year for over I
decade.