Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1857-11-21
REPLY OF MIR PAXTON TO TIE GAS
COMPANY


I have personal controversy with the Wheeling
/ Gas Company The possibility even of such a
thing never presented itself TO the "ComInIttee
of Accounts" when in compliance with an order
of the City Council, as chairman OF that Com
mittec, submitted the report which proves so
distasteful to the Company.
That report was intended to present to the
Council, in n plain, unvarnished manner, such
facts and figures as the Committee were enabled
to prepare for their information; and good taste,
as well as every rule of propriety, required the
Gas Company to address the Council in reply
to an official document of that body, instead OF
the public, through the columns of news
paper.
gentlemen accustomed to rely more upon sophis-
1 try and defamation than facts and figures, they
! charge that 1.-THE report is Onc-sided in detail,
er-ydrtc in arguments and arithmetic, unjust in
! its deductions and tlagrantly unfair" But
where is the proof to substantiate this sweeping
charge? Is it to be found i'll their published
statementy Does that statement refute single
fact, figure deduction of the "report!" Let
/ those answer who will carefully read the report
/ of the Committee to the City Council. feel well
assured their convictions must correspond to
those of their Delegates in that body, who, al-
ter hearing all tie Gas Company had to say in
explanation (of which this published statement
! is merely rchash,) unanimously adopted the
/ report and resolutions of their Committee.
/ Upon carefully reading over their statement
/ ITO the public find, with the many cXtranc-
Gus matters introduced, evidently to mstify the
subject, but two points touching the real qucs-
ton at iSsue-"w whether the Gas Company bills
against the city are in accordance with their
charter Those two points are, first, their
bubble upon the word ''rate" in the charter,
and secondly, their calculation protesting to
show the comparative cost OF pubic lamp IN
! Pittsburgh and Wheeling.
I Lame, indeed. must be the cause, McssrS. Edi,
tors which requires resort to such defence as
the former and such perversion OF facts and iig-
ureS as thelattcr; and this community will proa-
bly, appreciate such efforts the part of the Gas
Company, efforts that are anything but COM
plimentary to the understanding and Intelligence
of that public, they address.
The word rate" in the connection in which
it is used in their charter, simply means (as
must be evident to every one accustomed to
giveplain English habitually its honest construc-
tion) that for the quantity of gas used by this
city, she shall pay the Gas Company at the same
rate ('JHti0 or pFOpOrtiOnO as is paid by the
city of Pittsburgh, to their Gas Company. In
relation to the second Qhe iaacy of which was
promptly shown at the last meeting of Council,
to the entire satisfaction, believe, OF every
member presently the Gas Company have either
shown themselves profoundly ignorant of the
subject they discuss, or else are guilty of de-
liheratc effort 10 miscad and deceive the public;
they can choose which horn of the dilemma they
prefer. a charitable public may he willing to
concedc to them the first. But TO their figures.
They state that the average cost per annUm, for
gas consumed in public lamp in Pittsburgh is
$685. whilst here it is but $40, wherefore,
| Wheeling is supplied as cheap or cheaper than
Pittsburgh; and they Introduce formula to
sustain that inference. That formula is based
upon the assertion, "the lamps burnt in Pitts
burgh, are estimated at 250S hours" How did
they arrive at that estimate, by what rule In arth-
metic? Certainly not by the "ruc Of three" in
which they appear so proficient; aud in this as
sumption of 250S hours, hcy stun he coacictet
| from their OicH figures, either of ignorance or
misrepresentation, as they choose. IL n gas
lamp costs in Pittsburgh, $25,9S for gas con-
snned per annum, they state, land 1t dOes)
and the price is 81 ,02 per thousand feet, which
they will not dispute, it is evident that dividing
| 25,9S by 1,O2 will give the number of feet con-
Sumcd per annum, and the result will be 3d.
40 feet. If as they state 'the Pittsburgh hurn-
ers are estimated at feetper hour (Which is
correctly it is plain that dividing % 40 feet by
l73 feet Cthe hourly conSunption) the result
must be the correct number of hours per an
mum. %, 40 divided by7l produces 1896 hours
aud not 2jUS, as conveniently assumed by our
| Gas Company. Now let them amend the base
upon which they have built their lraii fabric Of
"arithmetic," by substituting the true number
| of hours for the assWHei continue their calcu-
latIOuS and they Will ind the result IN figures,
| facts and deductions, correspond with ;he Com
miltccs report to COuncil--3396 hours multi.
piled BY ZIP feet lhe hourly consumption
! produces 25,4TO feet, which multiplied by s. ,O2
per thousand, gives S25,9S, the price per lamp
in Pittsburgh, as stated by our Gas Company.
! 2llS hours (the number required by the Gin
cinnati Time Book, which governs Com
pany) multiplied by 3 feet Uhe hourly con
sumption. as claimed by our GaS Company,
! quired of them produces 10, $50 feet which at
I$l,02 per thousand pittsburgh ia } gives
ISlO,SO per lamp, instead of 800 no, .'ad by
the city.
| But, say the Wheeling Gas Compa =. it is
"Meir opinion they burn G1-2 feet CT hour
and 1900 hours. Assuming ''their opiaio"' as
correct, what is the result: 23OU multiplied by
g ID produces 1880 feet, which, at s ,02 per
thousand, gives Slt,T4, instead Of $40, as now
paid.
Throughout this controversy, from its incip-
icncy to the last line of their published state
ment, the Gas Company, or its apologists, ap
pear to have adopted the not unusual resort of
legal gentleman in weak cause, that of mystl
| fication, and with what success, your readers
must determine after fair comparison of the
report" and apology.
! In closing, desire to call public attention to
that paragraph in the Gas Company's statement
reading thus: "Whether this additional loss on
the city gas is to be borne by private consumers,
or rather, by the real estate owners, is queS-
ton for public consideration" Is this intended