Show AGAIN in a communication appearing in this issue lie light fuestion ue stion ix stated as understood by the well known firm A gaeff in sl is made to an editorial which appeared in the ot jhc thc insl it charge s us with having made au absurd proposition the statement referred to was certainly not understood c made no statement in said regarding alic putting of lights into buelling duelling du elling houses oar was As we understand lie matter alic with the street lights will not i husli hie electric light company hence alic question for consideration is simply whether the city is under obligations to continue the expense of the street lights and are alicy a necessity we have no to change our views our statement regarding llie was not based alono upon the alio llio coni colipy py had for introducing lie light into business and dwellings but alie curtailing curtail inc of expenses was from figures we have been able to procure we arc convinced that tho electric liam company can continue without the street lights if this be not tho case then the city is carrying alis institution as n comparatively useless expense it would lie cheaper for glogau to pay on the amount of loss that would bo sustained by alic removal of be street lamps etc than to continue the lights at alic present alic logic of comparing alic taking of the lights out of the streets to the destruction of ones house is not apparent and alio llio argument put forth in reference to private enterprise lias another side where arc the ono liala partners in a business who will carry it nt their own loss such partners arc very few alic taxpayers of logan represented hv hie city council arc interested in alic light company arc they interested enough to continue paying out per month with but little ad to them or do they have interest enough to invest that menus in sonic more profitable nay |