The Hattiesburg news. (Hattiesburg, Miss.) 1908-1917, 1916-04-04
SAYS PLANT WOULD PAY.
Continued From Page one.)

Continued From Page One.)
HattiesburS Traction Company by the
Mayor and Board of Commissioners 10
make any kind OF a contract that would
! better the lighting condition for the
balance Of the life Of The old contract.
! The Company stated that they could
not afford to buy the fixtures neces-
sary 70 make the change for that peri
cd Of time. Which was about three
years. The Cry offered TO state in the
contract that the fixtures necessary to
make the Grange would be taken over
by the city at the expiration OF the Old
contract, should the city decide to do
its own street lighting, which was
promptly rejected by the company.
AL these propositions were made by
the company with the understanding
that the city should not sell bonds.
Our city attorney was asked to pre-
pare a bill to give the necessary relief
for municipalities that happen to be
The Anderson Bill to which the
Traction Company so strenuously Otr
iects. can do the company no harm if
it wants to be fair. After the Ander-
son bill becomes a law, the city will
no Il, q noci+iOn +o doa1 With tho Troo
lion Company on equal terms Without
the Andersen bill, or something SINH
cy of the Traction Company in making
a lighting contract. The company has
no competitor and hence would be
in position to dictate terms 1t could
fix its own price to be paid and time
for the contract to run. and if the city
did not like it, the streets could 90
unlighted This is not a matter OF
conjecture Under the present contract
with the Traction Company the city
is paying $500 per month per light
for two thousand nominal candle pow
er lights This word nominal means
light anywhere from a Christmas
tree candle to a good light, and most
of our lights have proven to be Of the
former class.
The Traction COmpany's criticism
of the Anderson bill is based on self
ishness and not patriotism. The vote
in the House OF Representatives on
Monday. the 9th of March. on this
bill, ought to silence its critics On a
roll call eighty-four votes were cast
in favor of the bill and three against
it, There are a number of good law
yers in the house, and they, it seems,
did not think the bill was "ambig,
uous'
is the Anderson Bill "Ambiguous?"
Let us see. 1t provides that the city |
may erect and operate light plant Il |
the saving therefrom in ten years will 7
equal the cost of the investment. I'm /
der the present contract with the Trac-
ton Company, the city pays about |
So 10000 per annum for lights. Tea
years at this price makes $90,000CG +
paid out for light rent.
Suppose it can be demonstrated that
he City can furnish the same lights
for $4,000 per annum. This is a saw
ne of $4,50000 per annum, and for
ten years it amounts to $45,00000.
Suppose it can be demonstrated that
, light plant can be installed ~
o switch on the lights, giving the
same service the city now gets, fo'
100000. This $16,00000 is the in
restment meant by the Anderson bill.
Now the saving in ten years, as com,
Jared with the present contract, is
100000, which exceeds the invest
nent of SIC, 100000 nearly three to one.
Now. if the Anderson bill becomes 2
aW, tnc traction Company can pre-
'ent the city from owning light
)lant by making or offering in good
aith to make a reasonable contract
With the city, such a contract as pre-
'ents the city from saving enough in
en- years to equal the investment CT
100000. The Traction Company
f,ust not want to make such contract
" it would not fight the Anderson
ill.
The Traction Company's objection
o the Anderson bill is upon the same
ground that the fox objected to the
aught in our condition.
I