South Canterbury Times. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2670, 11 October 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1881.

The question of street lighting, which has vexed the mind of the Borough Council for the past month or so, was settled last night. The town is not to be left in darkness, nor are the lamps to be made merely visible (under favorable circumstances of wind and weather) by dim kerosene lights, though at one time during the discussion on the subject last evening the worst of these alternatives seemed not unlikely to be granted to us. The members of the Council may be credited with the fullest desire to do the best for the Burgesses they represent, and it must be admitted that they had a very difficult matter to deal with. The expense of street lighting, owing to the wide extent of the Borough in proportion to its population, is a heavy tax upon the ratepayers, and the Councillors who hoped to obtain a reduction in the cost by making as firm a stand as they could, need not be discouraged because they found themselves unable to modify the terms of the Gas Company, who are masters of the situation. On the other hand, the Gas Company do not appear to be taking undue advantage of their monopoly to charge exorbitant rates. None of the Councillors ventured to offer figures in support of his contention on either side, but the Company’s rates do not leave a very large margin to cover coat of repairs and the loss by leakage, the last of which must be considerable,as the strong smell of gas in the neighbourhood of some of the street lamps in the day time shows. ■The lamps will be lit an average of eight hours per night for 235 nights per annum, and each lamp will burn, at four and a-half feet per hour, about 8800 ft. in a year. This would cost, at 15s per thousand, £5 12s | add £1 15s per lamp for cleaning and lighting (the present cost) and a total of £8 7s is reached, leaving only 3s per lamp to cover risk of breakage and loss by leakage—by no means an exorbitant sum. The enquiries 1 made on behalf of the Council show conclusively that other towns lit by contract wifch gas companies have to pay more for this service than Tiraaru has paid or is to pay under the present arrangement. The decision of the Council to accept the more expensive alternative offer of the Company seems a little contradictory to their expressed disapproval of the high rates charged. It is true that for those persons who are out of doors after midnight the lighting of streets till tw T o in the morning will be an advantage ; but these are surely so few in number that it seems scarcely worth while to put the ratepayers to the expense of £3O a year for theii convenience, and the mere fact that

thelight is supplied at a cheaper proportional rate for tbe two extra hours is a very poor argument for incurring the additional expehse.

There is one direction in which the Borough may exercise economy, at any rate for the present, without much inconvenience to the community, and that is in the illumination of the town clock. Of course if the clock is to be illuminated the ratepayers will have to bear the cost, and as we understand that the Christchurch town clock costs over £IOO for illumination, the Timaru one cannot be well lighted for much less. It would be better to “go slow,” and not seek to possess all the luxuries of a wealthy city until we can afford them. The clock might be lighted on Saturday evenings ; the residents can very well dispense with such a luxury on other nights.