The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1881-07-14
TIE CITY AND THE GAS ouEa1roN

tons toward n1ancial reform and general
relrenchment. They are 10 DO commended
for tho lsudable disposition, and, II they ey-
idence wise, jus. and judicious course OF
action, they arc to be congratulated on whats
ever achievements they may attain to. AS
with the Water Works company, so with
the Gas company, they have
some differences In the matter Of what the
city should pay. In all these questions there
should be no guess work, no harum- scarum
assertions, but they should be
regarded and treated like the
business propositions of everyday
mercantile life. On this same page we
have expressed some of our views on the wa
ter works matter, and have done so frankly
and freely with the lights before US. We do
not know how fully the members OF the city
council have enlightened themselves on this
subject If they have proceeded in .their
treating with the gas company upon the n.y.
pothesis that because last year or the
year previous, reduction was secured,
ergo there ought to be reduction this year,
they have gone off upon an illogical tangent
in hap hszz,rd m amer. lion the other hand,
they have duly apprised themselves OF what
| il fair price for the article and. have
consequently based their position in the
existing controversy, then they have
Indeed acted like business men.
10 all business transactions government or
a private or any public corporation should
be treated and should treat as an individual
bound by moral oblig atoms as strong in the
one case as in the other. government
swindled means nothing more nor less than
its citizeGs swindled, for it is the latter from
whose pockets come the expenses of the
former. By parity of reasoning, governs
men., or a corporation should treat as fairly
asd as honorsbly as person. Our city
fathers, for instance, in all their contracts,
should see to il that the city shall receive the
largest amount of benefits at the lowest
reasonable cost. The reverse of this rule
would be confscation, either through
superior power or surprising shrewdness
What desired is a fair, reasonable, proper
figure for each party to give, or to receive
respectively. applying these principles
to the matter in hand with
the gas company, we find that
the question at issue is whether $35 per
snnum per lamp shall be paid as proposed
by the council, or $40 as offered by the COM
pany. If we mistake 90. iGere are now just
100 lamps in the city this is difference
OF $500 per annum for the total number of
lights. Now is $40 per annnm per light
fair figure for each Of the contracting parties
OF the cost Of the mar ufacture of gas we
ere entirely ignorant, but by reference to
some documents 10 our possession we find
that by actual tests and we'll guarded expert
ments, city street light will average some
220O hours through the year. These data
were secured by consideration of the vary
ing lengths of She night, the phase
of the moon, the stste of the weather, etc.
A five foot burner wotald therefore consume
annual II. 900 feet. This, at So per 1000
feet would cost $33 per lamp. The price
now charged to private consumers is So 80,
or say $3.50 per light. Now the gas COM
pany, as we understand the case, proposes
to furnish to the city, ct $40, which is just
about tue figure charged to individuals, less
the allowed per cent. discount for cash.
Blu. the company urge that the expense OF
lighting each evening and extingushing in
the morning, the wear aud tear of The posts,
the loss of glass castings by storms, the clean
ing of these, etc, the great waste of gas by
heavy winds etc, which are all just 80 much
of expense beyond tba! incurred
in serving private houses, that they would
prefer TO sell to tho city at SO 90 per 1000
feet if the latter will take charge of and
furnish sll except the gas supply. Now
then, the question arises is this SO 90 tax
fair one or not? For determination of this
In tbs absspce Of any figures as TO the costof I
such works as ours. of the necessary expenses
for working the same, etc, we can only be
guided by a comparative view with what is
elsewhere imposed. Wo are not advised oil
the present prices in our chief cities, but
two years ago, in Austin, Galveston, Hous-
ten and San Antonio, IL was $500
per 1000 cubic feet. We believe, how
ever, that this has been reduced.
although we are assured that the figures of
each of these cities, as also thoss Of Sherman
and Fort Worth, arc higher than those taxed
here This though is a question OF fact
quickly ascertainable. 50 Of prices In cities
Of Other states similsrly located aud condi-
toned a. Dallas. These. also, are of resdy
resch b. cur city fathers. and should be en-
quired Of. In Sswsrd's american Gas
Making" compendium Of gas datA,
publahed in 1873, (se have
DO later one) we And reported
he price pr 1000 feet for Selms, Als.
"a 90; Tor Hunisvills. $3.50; Eslens, Ark,
Sc 90: Rome, Ca, $3.50. New Orleans, g 20,
Columbus and Estchez, Mics, $3.50 70
$500: Brooklyn, n. Y. s2.5O; Saratoga
x M. C,ioroh,s and Z.nasvilla Ohio |