The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1914-05-28

May 9th, signed by C. w. Hunter,
wherein he criticises my article
printed in the Star, Saturday, May
gard. What 1 had to say about
Jacksonville electric light rates was
taken from an article that appeared
in the Times-Union, which contained
the following:
Encouraging City Growth"
THE ST. Louis Post editorial is as
follows: Jacksonville, Fla, invest
ed $1,6OO,O0O of city funds in a
plant to produce and sell electric
light, power and heat-not at cost,
but at prices calculated to give the
city fair margin of profit.
Jacksonville's municipal plant
has cut the price of electric current
hour. has paid all charges, earned
surplus of $35O.00O and has been a
big factor in attracting new indus
tries which have increased popula-
tlou iiOM = t,VVV III iSV1 " oV,VVV
in 1913.
The city on December / made
rate of cents per kilowatt hour for
current used in cooking, to help
housewives get rid of matches, ashes,
dust, dirt, SCOT, fumes, coal buckets
and pokers.- The local gas company
objected. The city replied that since
2-cent electricity is equivalent to
40-cent gas, the company's remedy
was to sell gas at that price and
compete.
Mr.. Hunter is Mistaken
And here is where Mr.. Hunter is
trying to make it appear that / am
attempting to mislead the public and
grossly misstated the existing cleo
trio light rates in Jacksonville.
What about comparing price of
gas with electricity? Must be cor
rect. What about Mr.. Hunter as
chairman of the city council repre-
senting two competitive interests,
the gas company that pays him a
handsome salary. and the city's cleo
trio light plant that pays him moth
ing? What about the statistics from
our electric light plant? Are they
misleading and grossly misrepresent-
ed? No one can dispute the fact that
our electric light plant has made
money in the past, after publishing
figures of its earnings. We should
be in position to generate current
practically at the same figure we did
last year. Wood does not cost any
more, labor is about the same and
supplies have not advanced to any
extent, and our plant is in fine con-
dition. / have it from reliable au-
thority that several thousand dol
lars had been expended in the past
few months for new poles and ex-
tension of lines, and that the cost OF
generating current was about 2kc.
per kilowatt at switchboard. All
this Information / gathered before
making my recent offer to furnish
current to the consumers at the
rates made by the city council Dec.
10th, 1913. l want to say right
here that 1 was perfectly sane and in
my right mind, was not Joking,
neither was 1 talking thru my hat,
but made a business proposition put
| in writing, submitted to the council
after familiarizing myself with local
conditions pertaining to the electric
light plant / say again, what / have
said many times, the city should by
all means own and maintain its cleo
trio light plant, and not consider
purchasing current at switchboard.
The vital point is to furnish current
cheap to the consumers and offer it
cheaper to new industries that would
locate here; this is what other cities
are doing, thereby greatly increas-
ing the population.
As to the $4,000 outstanding
electric light bonds due in 1918,
practically four years hence, this
should not worry anybody and has
nothing to do with the cost of cur
rent. If l am correct, the old plant
was purchased for $4,000. Accord
ing to records furnished me our cleo
| trio light plant paid from September
1st, 1907, to October 1st, 1913, into
| the general fund, s43,350 and ST.
500 for improvements of the plant
and extensions OF lines. This would
make our total investment s33, 500,
and l think the plant is worth every
dollar of the investment and more.
The general fund owes the light fund