Ladysmith news-budget. [volume] (Ladysmith, Rusk County, Wis.) 1907-1927, 1918-01-25
THE MUNICIPAL CAMPAIGN HAS
STARTED

SIAkSl Ely
Apparently the campaign for the
lighting company to hold on to the big
profit producing plant in Ladysmith
has already commenced with the dis
seminatiOn of alleged intelligence that
would be important if true. The stock
plea is that the taxpayer who does not
use light or power. is to he called on TO
assume an obligation for the benefit
of the user of current. In other
words. says the lighting company
advocates. this taxpayer will receive
no benefit. but have to pay nice snug
sum for the neighbOr who has light or
uses power. This sounds strong. and is
being circulated assidiOusly by the
cOmpany'S propaganda. But let us
pumcture this argument right here and
show that it is neither true nor based
on common sense or figures.
The city of I4adysmith levies taxes
10 be paid in 1918. to the total amount
of sci ,G6673 According TO the electric
light cOmpany's report last made, the
city paid from the taxpayers money,
S301392 for municipal lighting and
$1,000 for municipal power a fetal of
S4213.92 OF the taxes paid by each
taxpayer, therefore he must pay his
proportion whether he does or does not
use electric lights now or runs mo-
tor 1t makes no difference to him
what the user pays. but he Is vitality
interested in how much of the taxes he
pays to the city now goes to Chicago
TO be spent there by the foreign own
erS of the lighting plant. The per cent
of his taxes paid to the lighting COM
pany is .0699 or lacking One-hundredth
of a mill of being seven cents on every
dollar paid in by the taxpayer. pre-
scented to the lighting company and
going into the Myers pocket.
Now then if that taxpayer voted to
take over the plant, he would be saved
the Z cents on every dollar he pays out
in taxes 81 on every hundred would
go back into the pockets of the labor
ing man and the home owner, and it
makes not the slightest difference
whether he lights his home with can
dies, kerosene or electricity: the saw
1iiS Is the SdHlc.
On the basis of profit Myers is max
ing. the city can take this sum out of
the budget entirely and have 5529S. A
left on the right side of the ledger. If
the city reduces the light and power
rates 20 per cent there will still be left
$22G911 This will pay the interest
on the bonds of $3.50. 900, if that be the
sum required. at > per cent. and have
still $7G9.11 i'll the treasury. Not only
that but there will be no salary pro-
portion to pay to the officers of the
Myers Company down in the mahogany
offices i'll Chicago.
The voter who pays no taxes will
surely add no burden TO himself, but
he will be paving the way for the time
when he may be Il taxpayer. toward
reduction. He will eventually he
benefited by the natural addition of
new industries that ever follow the
ownership of municipal light and
power plants in cities that have addi-
tiOnal attractions for the manufacturer
as are i'll Ladysmith.
No one need feel that he is voting to
take bread and butter from the mouth
of the Chicago owners. The Myers
interests have Ladysmith as small
fraction OF Il great system of capital
invested in public utilities. There is
the Ashland Light. Power & St Ry
Co. the BeSSemer Light & Power Co.
the Southern Wisconsin Electric Co.
the water works and other interests at
Hurley the dam ON the Montreal
river and others depending on the pub
lie. Every opportunity has been given
for the local plant 10 rcduct its rates
in keeping with the low rate they pay
for water power.
Then there is the argument that if
the city fakes the plant the manage
ment will have 10 be changed constant
ly. There is no evidence TO that eff
feet. TIE city is as able TO get a com
petent man for the job as the private
corporation He will have te be a man
skilled in the handling of such plant
and with commission in charge of the
light system. removed from any poll
tics. as is done elsewhere the taxpayers
are assured of care Of their interests.
One thing when the worst is antici-
pafed. il would take fool or thief
10 be able to lose money for the tax
payer on the investment by the city.
AS it is now the net operating reve-I
atles or profits show almost 30 per cent
of operating expenses. In four years
and five months the present company
can pay for the plant from the profits.
Why not every taxpayer be a stock
holder in such plant;