The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-03-24
THE NEW Gas BILL.

To the Editors Of the Exchange:
am pleased with the candor of your correspon-
dent, "Gas Consumer" and respectfully ask at your
hands the favor of replying to his second commun-
cation.
From the general tenor of his last article pre-
that he is open to conviction and will not OPP
pose the ordinance under consideration, if he can
be persuaded that his views are not correct.
He now charges that the bill as it stands is in
equitable, and ought not to pass.
"First-Because it perpetuates monopoly for
"the benefit of few, without an equivalent being
"paid therefor" 1t is known by all that the Gas
Company is chartered company, holding its rights
from the State of Maryland, and the City of Balti
more cannot destroy or perpetuate the charter. 1t
has no control over it.
".Second-1f this bill passes, the faith of the city
''is pledged that no opposition shall be allowed to
''the present Company"
This is not so, nor do believe that the Mayor
make any such pledge, and here, as in my former
communication, would most respectfully ask your
correspondent to read the ordinance before he
writes about it.
he gas will not be raised to the city and to the pri
"vate consumer, nor even pledge that the quality
'sha remain as it is now" In his former communi-
cation "Gas Consumer" said "when we applied for
can Inspector of Gas and Gas Meters wewere met in
"the lobby, in the street. in the Senate everywhere,
''by the Gas Company and we were defeated"
If this is the tact, then really cannot understand
"Gas Consumer" He was defeated-how He de-
Gas Meters The Legislature surely gave it to him,
and if it is to be defeated when have requests
granted, then really cannot imagine how l am to
| reply to such statements as "Gas Consumer
| makes.
The Legislature gave the power, and the Mayor
and City Council have now the power, if they will
choose to exercise it, to appoint such officer.
Now, think, have replied to all of the objec-
| tions of "Gas Consumer" and will proceed, very
briefly, to notice his general remarks He SAYS in
relation to the ordinance: "The solitary benefit to
'be derived to the city is to get her suburbs lighted
''but this is provided for now"-by the consumer
paving the interest upon the cost which is RENTED
! as new consumers added to the mains. The city
can make the same arrangement and save the per-
petuity of monopoly. "Gas Consumer" here yields
the whole ground of controversy, and mustif neces
sitv if he is canddy seeking after the truth, admit
that he has Inexperienced the whole matter
He is willing that the city should procure the
mains to be laid by the Gas Company upon the same
| condition as suburban citizens are supplied. NOW
let me explain this matter by little of personal ex
perience The writer, residing on the suburbs with
few of his neighbours desired the mains to be extend
ed to their property. The nearest point where the
mains were laid was over 5000 feet distant, which, al
60 cents per foot made ST $780, This amount had to be
provided for before the work could be done enough
persons agreed to take the gas to reduce the
amount to about $500, which was nearly all paid
within four months from the time of the contract.
"Gas Consumer" is in favor of this system, and
therefore opposes the ordinance now before the
Council The writer is opposed to this system if
better can be adopted, which be humby conceivei
is embraced in the ordinance alluded to.
Now, instead of assuming the payment of the
mains, the ordinance says to the Gas Company lay
81 miles of main every year, or should the cost be
come less than 60 cents per foot lay Sl0ooO worth
of main every year at your own cost and charge
in whatever street, lane, &c., the Mayor and City
Council shall direct. But we wish you, the said
Gas Company, distinctly to understand that you
4 have no exclusive right to the use Of
the thoroughfares, and should you at any
i time 70 conduct yourself, or should eircum.