Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1912-03-19
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE BOND ISSUE
AND MUNICIPALITY OWNED LIGHTING PLANT
Request The Recorder Both Sides Present Their Views On AorDo Question
Against Municipal Ownership

city official, within the last two years
has told you that you could build an
electric plant for $4,000, just before
the $4,000 bond election, and hired
an engineer out of job to back him
up. He has made incorrect estimates
as to everything he has attempted to
estimate. How much longer will you
stand for it?
Third. They tell you that they have
poor street lights. They have, and it
is their fault. Any statement that
they have ever tried to have us i'm
prove them by offering us even a one
years contract on account of the in
vestment is false. The records spread
upon the minute book of the Mayor
and City Council of Americus" will
show you that in the last four years
many attempts have been made to
secure a contract for street lighting
for one year and that new lights have
been offered at the old price if con-
tract could be had. With city officials
stating openly on the streets that if
the people vote bonds for a municipal
plant there will be private plant for
sale cheap the day after election, is it
any wonder that this company has
failed to spend $4,000 in new arc
lamps? What would you do, Mr..
Voter?
Fourth. They quote Jacksonville, a
city of almost $4,000 people, as a sam
.'n of the successful municipal plant.
Possibly they try to fool the people
there with the same sort of fables
that the municipal ownership people
are putting up to you now. They on
ly have a little matter of over $500 900
invested in their electric plant and are
OILY preparing to spend 100000 more
in extensions and repairs. Did any
M. o. advocate ever tell you what the
city of Jacksonville pays for fuel? ASK
them, for the cost of fuel makes
great difference.
Fifth Their recent expert, the city
electrician of Atlanta generally
known as inspector of wires and SER
vices). hired for the occasion. told a
few of the voters at a meeting of the
Citizens Club how cheap electricity
was in Monroe, Go. The only actual
fact that he stated was that the City
of Monroe really had a municipal
plant. A bill for the month of Jan
uary, now before us, shows that the
maximum charge for electricity in
Monroe is 12c, and that the minimum
charge is SC per K. w. We think he
failed to tell you that the service is
not all day and we know that he fail
ed to tell you that the audit of the
books of the city for the year 1911,
as made by Joel Hunter & Company,
certified public accountants of Allan
ia, showed that there is a very great
loss in this department. 1t is on file
in our office. Come and see it.
Answering these arguments and
others of like character, and based
upon the same unsound reasoning, we
would refer you TO the following:
First. Our large advertisement in
The Times-Recorder setting forth
what municipal ownership has really
done in towns where the lighting
plants are in the hands of local COM
mission and where their operations
are under the jurisdiction of the State
Board of Gas and Electric Commits
sioners, just as are private corpora
tions. These figures are Illuminating,
as they show what some lighting
plants have really cost as against the
estimated cost here they show how
much each lost through it's operation,
exclusive of lost taxes and interest OIL
appropriations made for maintenance
and how the taxpayer had to pay the
fiddler.
Second. Our advertisement on page
2 of The Times-Recorder These call
your attention to two matters of par
ticular interest. They show you how
the citizens of Griffin are fighting for
protection from high rates, a protec-
ton which the railroad commission
cannot give against a municipality
owned plant, and how much their
lights are really costing them. Com
pare this with the statement that this
city will save $1,000 on a $4,000 ac-
count, as made by one of the M. O..
aldermen.
They also show you how Douglas,
Georgia, failed to get protection
against high rates in a municipality
owned plant. The Georgia railroad
commission positively refused to in
terfere in behalf of consumers.
Third. We refer you to the various
personal arguments and the many
Misrepresentation made by the M. O.
advocates in an attempt to cloud the
real issue, and their failure to pro-
duce any real arguments in time to al
low a refutation to be published.
E1otiYsfh IUa rafo. x,o., -