The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-03-07
COUNCIL GIVES LIGHTING FIRM
 BIC MONOPOLY Machine Aldermen Override Protests of Harrigan
 Against It. % CITY PICKS LEMON
 DESPITE WARNINGS Stagg, Who Engineered Deal Couldn't Tell De-
 tails of Contract.

Under the contract with the United Illuminating Co.,, which the common council ratified last night, the city of Bridgeport will not only be obliged to pay the same rate as a private individual but the illumin- ating company is also given a mon opo1y on street lighting in this city," declared Alderman Daniel ?. Harri- gan today.
 On the recommendation of the lamps committee, the common coun- cil last night it was voted to give the Illuminating Go. a contract for 500 tungsten lights for three years to supplant the gas lamps now in use about the city. Alderman Harri- gan's contention is that under this contract the city not only gets less light but pays more for it.
 In opposing the letting of the com tract last night and asking that the contract be reconsidered, Alderman Harrigan asked Alderman Stagg,i chairman of the lamps committee, some embarrassing questions, which. he did not answer. The contract with the Illuminating Co. was made under the direction of Alderman Stagg. His committee had several secret sessions in the city clerks of fee in the city hall at which Charles A. Paul. Bridgeport manager of the lighting company, was present. Rep resentatives of the American Street Lighting Co.,, the only other bidder for the contract, were barred.
 Alderman ,Harrigan last night asked Alderman stagg what the voltage and the amperage Of each light, which the Illuminating Go. proposed to fur n1sh, would be. Alderman StaggF would not answer. He knew the. candle power would be 80.
 'tI'n answer the other questions for you,'' said Alderman Harrigan. '"The7 voltage will be IT and the amperage 4. To have a light that will equal in brilliancy the present 60 candle power gas lamps we should have tungsten lights of at least 100 candle power. The city loses either way, in light and in the cost.
 Multiply the voltage by the amp craze and you get 68 watts, which each light burns. There are 4.2o04 burning hours each year. Multiply this again by the wattage per night and you get 1856, the Gattage for the year. Multiply this by seven cents, the price per ki11owat hour and you get $19.99. The prick the commit tee got from the Illuminating Co. was s2O. You see the company shaded the cent difference in it's own favor.
 Now I have reliable information that electricity for lighting purposes can be produced. for about one and 'one-half cent a, kilowatt or at a cost of about $4.27 per lamp per year. I am willing this contract should have been made on a sort of 50-5O basis but I am opposed to this contract which proposes to charge the city tn e same rate private individual. I know that manufacturers get current for less than seven cents and the rif iz nh fTif fI1oT en cents.
 'I believe five cents per ki1owaHt would be fair price considering the amount of business involved in the contract and the time it is to run. At five cents the cost per light would be to the city of $7,140 for the number of lights it is proposed to furnish. The cost now is $9,996''
 Alderman Stagg responded that the contract had been made after bids had been received by the board of contract and supply and the United illuminating Go. had been found the lowest bidder. Alderman Harrigan replied that he did not think the board of contract and supply had talk en pains to get good bids. Alderman Caldwell said the committee had done it's best and there was no intention to, make play to the grand stand in letting the contract.
 @1 don't think the committee has done it's best,'' retorted Alderman Harrigan. tI have presented figures to show you that you simply obtained the rate which a private in dividua1 pays. Anyone could go out and make a contract like that will ask that this contract be reconsider ed'
 Alderman Harrigan's motion to re- consider the lighting contract was seconded by Alderman Corr but was voted down by the Republican mem bers of the board. The contract. was then ratified despite the opposition from the Democratic members.