Ladysmith news-budget. [volume] (Ladysmith, Rusk County, Wis.) 1907-1927, 1913-10-03
A Bad Case of Mysteries


Our esteemed contemporary, the
Journal, seems to have worked up a
fine case of Mysteries over the recent
awarding of a contract to the light
ing company by the city commits
sioners. Now the News-Budget holds
no brief for the Ladysmith Lighting
Co. nor the city, nor has this paper
the slightest reason Or motive for
upholding any unhOly agreement be-
tween the two that in any way COM
promises the best interests of the
city We do believe in being fair
minded, though.
Furthermore, We have no desire to
engage in lengthy discussion with
the Journal, for the latter has more
OF an inclination, apparently. to stir
up fractional strife than there is any
cannot refrain from commenting on
a column of glaring misstatements
and inaccuracies in which the News
Budget and editor are frequently in
terWOven.
We re-iterate that no valid reason
has been advanced why the city
should not have followed the state
wide custom and entered into that
contract. If some argument had
been presented to show that the city
would lose in some way or other by
awarding this contract, then delay
would have been the proper course,
but to say that the Gil. could as we'll
get along without a contract at all
is no argument against it. The state
railroad commission prefers to have
contract in force between the city
and the lighting company in any
place as the proper and busine S.
like way to manage the matter. In
view of the railroad commissions
advice to enter into a contract where
none exists, what becomes of the
Journals frenzied 'holler?'
The fact that an investigation is
pending has nothing to do with let
ting the contract. This investiga-
ton, will no doubt not be concluded
for several months When it is con-
Guided, the rates will be revised if
they are shown to be too high or too
low, regardless of the contract. In
the meantime, the city is getting a
much lower rate for it's street lights
than heretofore, the reduction COM
mencing Sept. /. Besides the city will
get the benefit of day service, comm en-
cling the first of Dec. The Journal
says, I'VE are unable to discover in
the contract single item that is Of
the least advantage to the city" Is
there no advantage in lower rate
($15 less) on street lights or in Sc
curing day service? "There are none
SO blind as those who do not want
to see" All night street lighting
and the abolition of the moonlight
schedule" appears to us, with an our
ignorance so gratuitously implied in
the Journals alarming wall, as
some Improvement worthy of passing
note, considering the accompanying
advantage of a lower rate.
The Journal says the city council
could fix the rates to be paid for
lighting and require all-night- street
lighting and day service by ordinance,
subject to action by the railroad com
mission, of course. What difference
would it make? II this method is
preferable, why doesn't the commits
sion recommend it? The city COM
missioners think the rates specified
in the contract are reasonable and
as near what they should be as they
can arrive at until a detailed inves-
tigation is made, and which they have
asked for
The contract was not let at
special meeting as enormously stated
by the Journal as one of the highly
features but at an
adjourned regular meeting, adjourned
to give anyone who might have any
thing to say against the contract a
final and additional opportunity to
point out anything in the agreement
to the city's interests.
Following the taking up of the mat