South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1913-12-02
PUBLIC HEARING
ON CITY LIGHTING
QUESTION TONIGHT

CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONE)
sion. asking a review OF the local
lighting situation. and a readjustment
Of local rates both for municipal light
ing and 10 private consumers. Coun-
Gilman Rice in a lengthy address,
championing the petition and remon-
STRANGE, tried 10 have the ordinance
confirming the contract tabled until
after the commission had been given
opportunity TO act.
His motion. however. failed and the
public hearing on the ordinance and
remonstrance is the one that will be
taken up at the executive session Tues
day night. Councilman Rice also
made a plea, in which ne was backed
by Councilman Fink and Buechner, in
favor OF a municipal light distributing
plant which he asserted could be in
stalled at an expense OF approximate
~ $4,000.
This $4,000 on the basis OF his es-
innate would " SO miles OF streets,
10 lamps to h mile. or 500 lamps, Of
which two miles would be underground
and 5S miles overhead wiring. The
total expense of the underground in
~stallatiOn, he figures, would run $1,000
a mile, and the overhead installation
500 a mile. City Engineer Moore,
however. points out that the proportion
OF underground to overhead wiring,
under the present ordinance, would
run not less than % miles of the for
mer 30 35 miles Of the latter, which,
according TO the cOuncilman's own
estimates per mile would bring the
cost OF h plant up TO approximately
S199, 800.
The proposition of the councilman
not TO have a generating plant, but to
buy the current Of the Indiana *
Michigan at wholesale rates. and the
city distribute the current itself. same
as is now done in Mishawaka- il is
claimed, at a considerable saving to
the city.
City Plant Impossible.
Lawyers acquainted with the public
utilities law are taking the position
on the other hand hat a municipal
distributing p'[nt for South Bend is
impossible as long as the Indiana *
Michigan IS equipped TO furnish the
city light. and stands ready to furnish
such light at rates which the utilities
commission may deem reasonable.
The purpose of the commission it
is asserted. is TO preserve To the util-
ity company its monopoly as long as
IL will serve the public at such rea-
sOnable rates as leaves but a reason
able return on actual investment and
physical property. When the COM
pany refuses to do that, or is unable to
do il, the commission can compel it TO
sell out 10 the city at a price which
the commission will fix.
1t is also maintained that SO far as
CITY lighting is concerned. there is
nothing before the commission for
consideration until a contract has ac-
tually been entered into. At present
there is only a contract in cOntenpla-
ton. and IL is claimed that a hearing
on that question would be like trying a
moot case in court, which is very con-
trary 10 the rules OF practice.
The commission on the present pc
tition can consider the question of
rates 10 private consumers for there
the rate. by implied contract, is ad-
mitted TO exist. but the only contract
with the city is the old one. executed
nine years before the public utility
law was enacted. and this, the lawyers
say. carries obligations beyond the
power Of the commission 10 impair.
The hearing ordinance promises TO
call out 81 considerable s%prinkling of
interested parties after which the
council VIII probably take the matter
up farther in secret and virtually de-
eide what they will do with it when
il up for final or third reading
next Monday evening.