Tacoma’s Electric Light War

TACOMA, Aug. 26.—[Special.]—Among the communications received recently at the Tacoma bureau of the Post-Intelligencer were two of serious import. One contained the following note:

'Tacoma Bureau of the Post-Intelligencer: I wish you would read over the enclosed communication and in the spirit of fairness for which your paper seems to be justly recognized publish the same in such interested form as you may deem best. But I do want it made evident that the newspapers of this town are simply gagged. And these facts can be readily substantiated.'

The name of the writer of this note and of the communication will be furnished to the proper interested persons. The communication has not been altered in the least:

'The notices which have appeared in the Ledger regarding the suit brought by the Commercial Electric Light and Power Company vs. the city have been so garbled that the opinion generally prevails that the city won its suit, but from the prima facie evidence such is not the case. The Commercial Electric Light and Power Company brought three separate complaints in its case, which was tried before Judge Pritchard. One was a complaint to show cause why the city should not be enjoined from furnishing commercial lights altogether, in view of the fact that, having already granted the Commercial company a franchise, it was, by making low rates, and in many instances furnishing the same at less than cost, endeavoring to drive the Commercial Electric Light and Power Company out of the business. Another complaint was that the city had no right to furnish light for less than cost, because by so doing it was unjustly taxing the citizens. Another complaint was that the city had no right to discriminate in rates, as it had been doing, but must make one rate for all and adhere to it.

'On the first cause for complaint Judge Pritchard ruled that the city had a right to furnish light to private consumers, but he issued an order restraining the board of public works from making rates to suit themselves, and further ordered that the city council make a rate, thereby stopping any and all discrimination. This latter ruling was all that the Commercial Light and Power Company expected, for the city ordinance already passed rules that in no case can the city furnish lights at less than cost. The Commercial company has expressly stated that if the council in fixing these rates appoint an advisory committee, who shall be empowered to call in an expert electrician to show them what it actually costs to make a light, they will then be governed themselves by the rates, and will be willing to adhere to them.

'When Mr. Bennett's paper published the board of public works' side of the case the Commercial company asked that in justice to themselves the Ledger should publish their proposition to have an advisory committee appointed by the council, and have an expert of their own selection called in, but as Mr. Bennett runs an electric light plant from his own hotel the Ledger would not publish any statement which could possibly show the Commercial Electric Light and Power Company's side of the case, and in consequence the public generally is led to suppose that the board of public works, in endeavoring to run the Commercial Electric Light and Power Company out of the field, and in its general mismanagement of the city plant, are only doing their duty. They have taken away the customers of the Commercial Electric Light and Power Company by simply taking lights at lower rates, without even considering whether these rates were not already low enough, as in the instance of the Fife hotel, burning 300 incandescent lamps under contract to the Commercial Electric Light and Power Company at $100 a month.

'The city added two arc lights and agreed to take them for the absurdly low price of $55 per month for the summer months and $60 for the winter. The arcs alone, at lowest ruling rates, would be $20 per month, leaving in the long winter days only a small sum per month to pay for 300 incandescent lights, or an average of 15 cents per month a light. Now, when according to all statistical information, it costs 70 cents a month to make a light, it is clearly evident that this must entail rather a serious loss, which the taxpayers are compelled to make good.'

The communication is from an authoritative source. An ordinance has been passed by the city council, however, which fixes rates that the city's electric light plant managers must adhere to.