The City Against the Light Company

Tacoma, Sept. 9. — [Special.] — Judge Pritchard's order citing the board of public works to show cause why it should not be held in contempt has started afresh the electric light discussion, regarding which the following has been written by a responsible authority:

Under the headline, "The Electric Light Business," the Daily Ledger of Tuesday, September 4, makes a very feeble protest against the Post-Intelligencer article entitled, "Complaints From Tacoma," and even takes the stand that unless the supreme court reverses the order the city will be unable to compete with the Commercial company in furnishing lights to private consumers. It furthermore claims that it has always taken this view of the case, totally ignoring the fact that the day after Judge Pritchard rendered his decision the Ledger, on August 14, published a different opinion under the following headline:

"THE CITY CAN SELL LIGHTS. JUDGE PRITCHARD DECIDES AGAINST THE COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY."

If this would not give at least the impression that the city had won their suit, then the writer is very much mistaken with regard to the average intelligence of those few who read the Ledger editorials.

If the Ledger is not "gagged," why did it refuse to publish the "Commercial Electric Light and Power Company's" plea which was assuredly an eminently fair one. Namely: "That the council should appoint an advisory committee who should have it in their power to call in the services of an expert to determine what the rates ought to be, and then establish the same, and the Commercial agreed to maintain such rates." The Ledger would not publish this, but on the other hand in its editorial column urges the city council to act directly in contempt of court, viz:

"The council need be in no haste to fix rates under this decision. In fact it should delay doing so until the case is decided in the higher court, and the appeals should be prosecuted, and prosecuted with vigor."

What Judge Pritchard thinks of this gratuitous editorial advice may be judged by his proposed arraignment of the board for contempt.

In their last editorial the Ledger shows clearly the animus which controls the paper. It openly acknowledges that it is in favor of the board of public works running the Commercial Electric Light and Power Company out of the field. In other words, it advocates that prominent citizens, like Mr. Chester Thome, Mr. W. B. Bushnell, Mr. John S. Baker, Mr. M. A. Denton, and others who have invested a sum aggregating about $90,000 in a legitimate business, guaranteed by a franchise granted by the city of Tacoma, should simply be mulcted not only out of the interest, but also out of the entire capital invested, thus using the taxpayers' money to confiscate the property owned by a corporation working under a franchise granted by the city, and this is the presumably unbiased criticism of the leading newspaper of the city of Tacoma.

Will the editorial spirit of justice which incites such a procedure also advocate the removal of the wires running from the Tacoma hotel electrical plant, owned by Mr. Bennett, to light the Ledger building, owned by Mr. Bennett, and extending down Pacific avenue as far as W. Bradley's, 701 Pacific avenue (saloon), and taking in en route F. Rivak, 709 Pacific avenue (saloon), S. D. Evans, 711 Pacific avenue (saloon), W. Thompson, 717 Pacific avenue (saloon), Stolfe & Co., 813 Pacific avenue (saloon), Thatcher & Knox, 813 Pacific avenue, Manley Bros., corner Ninth and Pacific avenue, Stewart & Holmes, 910 Pacific avenue, Turrell Bros., 922 Pacific avenue, and others, to whom light is being furnished for day and night at $1 a month for each lamp, or at rates with which no legitimate electrical concern could compete? The hotel company, however, has to run its machines, and consequently until they are filled up the rate is no object, for whatever is taken in is just so much profit.

Certainly, if the city council do their duty they will stop all isolated plants from running wires across the streets and furnishing light without first obtaining a franchise. In conclusion, let it be here understood that the Commercial Electric Light and Power Company would never have cut rates if the board of public works had not attempted to exterminate them. In a city the size of Tacoma there is room for two companies, and, if the rates are made so that a living profit can be earned, the Commercial Electric Light and Power Company would be the last to make a cut, providing the isolated plants, which are the greatest pirates in the business, be enjoined from crossing the streets and were confined simply to their own premises.

The Commercial Electric Light and Power Company is simply lighting for its rights, and proposes, despite the Ledger and the board of public works, to establish their claim to sell light to the citizens of Tacoma and not to be driven out of the field.