The central record. (Lancaster, Ky.) 18??-current, 1920-08-05
WHY NOT THE CITY
OWN THE LIGHT
PLANT.
Will The People Be
Protected?
WHAT SHOULD ne DONE ABOUT
LIGHTING THE TOWN.

ms TINT the Council and the legal
depar,ment ~ the City would proper
Ia look after the interest Of the peo-
nile in the controversy with the own
e,. Of III. Light and Power Plant OF
an. city, has taken little interest
heretofore in the controversies That
have been going on. Bu, 30 many
citizens have spoken TO " about the
matter and finally having been per
ssually requested to 40 before the
Couneil in the interest o. the people
and being invited by the Council TO
do so We were present nj the meeting
Monday night last and gave our
views IN person 20 the Council a. 10
~ha, should be done under the pres
ant conditions. Basin Brothers. the
ewncrs % the plant, were asking
rate amounting 20 about 23's cents
per X. W. for private lighting ana
$500. 90 per month for lighting the
streets and pumping This appeared
4, "a. 20 be unreasonable. II Is gen
orally known that the owncrs 81 the
plant have given notice and were
threatening to close down the plant
and refuse 20 give service ms
has excited and terrified a number
Of people and some o. the City
authorities until they were Wiling
h, se.med 10 give any kind Of con
cessions and pay any kind Of rates
that the Light people demanded. u
IA presently in the power OF the Light
Company 90 close down the plant. but
u 1. our opinion that under the con
tract existing between the Company
and the City that II the legal depart
ment Of the City should do its duty
10 the people that the Circuit Court,
which will be in session the fourth
Monday in this month. would prompt,
ly be a receiver In charge Of the plant
20 be operated for the benefit 81 the
people. II - further our opinion
tina, had the legal department OF the
City taken the proper legal steps
that il, filed an answer IN the suit
against the city. which was not done,
xttting out that the notice 20 quit
was no, a reasonable notice, that in
stead Of three months notice Il
should have been three years notice.
we have no doubt but the Court would
have sustained the City's contention
and instead Of having to pay eigh-
teen cents per X. W. for private
lighting as finally agreed upon Mon
day night. after the people had pro
tested so strongly. service would have
been compelled by the Court for at
least two years at the old rate from
\ to 10 cents per X. W. Again, the
City could have plead. which was not
done. that under the contract between
the City and the Company that the
City could take the plant over at its
original cost. under certain condi-
tons and provisions and owned and
operated the plant as public owned
uuhay w So"neeuo" VIZ" Wv
plant now owned oy the O''y we
have no doubt that the courts "ou'a
hold u the Citys legal department.
IN charge Oh nr' u. u ioh''"so"'
CITY Attorney. would TIE an answer
IN tins case pleading as provided IN
the contract Tor the '''S' 'ha' 'he
al
cry desired TO exercise us option 10
take over the pant uhdet Tue terms
OF the contract thA' 'he Court "oulu
hold that the cry could DO So IN
TINS connection We desire 10 say 'na'
the City should own TINS pant Is
able 70 do so financially ana u "ou'a
be money maker 70 'he O''y' ana
now Is the time Tor the O"y 70 90 so
when the present owners oil 'he hght
plant desire TO quit business ana nave
given notice that they lntend 10 DO