, 1876-09-03
THE CITY GAS BILLS.

THE CITY GAS BILLS.
When h1r. WATKINS, the President of the
City Gas-Light Company, which supplies the
North and South Divisions, made his propo-
sition to furnish the street gas for $21 per
lamp per year, we advised the City Council
to acceptit if the estimate was made upon
the basis of S1.5o per 1000 feet, which is
the price generally agreed upon as fair. We
supposed that this was the basis Of the esti-
mate, as MIR. Watkins had previously stated
that he would advise his Company to take
$1.50 per 1000. It seems that this is not
the case. A writer in the Times has done
the Gas Company an injustice by figuring
out that the Company would actually receive,
at the rate of $o1 limp, few cents more
than So per 1000, which is the rate Of the
old contract, and 30 0cents higher than is paid st
present. The principal error in this figuring
is the omission of the fact that the proposed
charge of $21 lamp per year includes the
cost of lighting, cleaning, repairing, and
thawing in winter,-items that have hereto
fore been paid by the city separately and in
addition to the regular gas~bi1ls. In 1875
Mr.. WATK1ss' company was paid $31, 900 for
these items, and the average number of
lamps in the North and South Divisions was
1900, making an average cost Of little
more than Sc per lamp for the items now in
cluded in the proposition Of $21 per lamp.
Deducting this amount it leaves $15 per
lamp per year as the payment for the gas
consumed The average time per year, &C.
cortling to the new table for light
ing and extinguishing, is 1888 hours
for each lamp, which, at the rate
of 3 feet per hour, would consume
7,014 feet in the year. At the rate Of $3.50
per 1000, this would make the cost of each
lamp S1o.5o instead Of SIS as proposed by
Nr. WATKINS, after deducting fair estimate
for lighting, cleaning, and repairing. His
proposition makes the city pay little more
than So per 1000 feet. It may be that
margin has been left for the supply Of gas
during cloudy weather, though Mr. WArKEs'
proposition does not state this distinctly;
but, even if this is contemplated, the margin
of so cents per 1000 for the entire year is
rather too liberal for the Gas Company, and
seems to anticipate more cloudy weather
than is at all probable or desirable.
The Council will do better, on the whole,
to insist that the proposition shall be made
for regular charge of $1.50 per 1000 feet,
and pay for the extra expenses Of lighting,
cleaning, and repairing at the same rates as
heretofore. To accept the proposition made
by Mr.. WATKINS will be to make saving of |
only so cents per 1000 on the actual cost of
the gas consumed, though it is agreed on all
sides that 81 per 1000 ought to be saved. !
The bulk of the saving on the aggregate
bills is made by q reduction in the size of the |
burner from S feet to feet, and reduction |
in the number Of hours for lighting the |
lamps. But this is not enough. The only |
advantage Of paying round sum per lamp
is in the possible discontinuance of test
meters, but even these would have to be re- |
tanned in order to make sure that the city re-
ceived as much gas as it was entitled to get.
# Mr. WATKINS and his Company have de-
termined to furnish the city with gas at
the rate Of $1.50 per 1000 feet, the fairest
way will be to make proposition to that ef-
feet in plain terms. If not, then let the
South Side Company be treated the same as
the West Side Company, and oil-lamps
adopted throughout the city for couple of
years. This will bring both companies to
terms in the end The sentiment of the
people is opposed to any further temporizing
With the gas monopo1ists. We do not think
hey can control the present Council as there
8 reason to believe they have obtained their
immunity to plunder the people heretofore.
They have had ample time to decide whether
hey will treat the public fairly or not. If
hey have decided not to do so, then the peo-
pie rely confidently upon the Council to pro-
set them from further extortion.