The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-01-25

Messrs. Granger d Co.'s proposition:
Cts;
Add for condensation.... n..................,."... u
Cost in OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES. SO
Add for distribution a. aboye............... IL
Fer rthOusand............ ...............,.... 7S
In the above the only uncertain elements
are Mr.. Andcrson's claims that with the
new benches OF retorts twenty men will do
the labor OF forty-eight, and that he will
obtain from the coal 1GS per cenl. more gas
than is now obtained-that is, ii one pound
OF coal yields now - feet OF gas, in the
new benches it will yield 6 40 feet. Both
these claims are largely too great.
Mr.. Anderson presents the following es-
innate Of cost:
Coal. l......"........... ......3el.c. per 1000
Iurifyllg, lg,s....s.s............
LaOOr....sss.. 49,.
Less reslduum....... ..... IL
-ioHc. in holder.
Cents.
nor I Ono 'o
Deduct distribution per MIR. Adams..............l2
Leaving cost in holder...... .................66
Deduct for 2s men dischargcd............ .''''l6
And the cost Of labor remaining is.............50
Mr.. Anderson solves that problem and
derives the result Of II cents.
The Auditor shows cost Of incidental expenses. |
Mr. Adams allows for purifying D
Leaving out OF bis estlmate................" 6
These figures show how false are the re-
suits obtained from il partial standpoint,
but there is a defect IN his estimate pointed
ont by Nr. Adams, which shows how de-
ccptiye il is even from his own standpoint.
In that estimate the month OF December
or the present is assumed as the basis. In
the winter time the production being SO
preatly increased the cost per 1000 Is
greatly diminished. Fortunately it can be
shown what the gas would cost for the
entire year, on the estimate presented OF
495 cents, based on the cost in December.
The Auditor shows the cost for the entire
Deduct for di-tribulon. lon..................l3
0''''H'' 40 ''''1""''' 90
Present cost in
4 published statement gives cost In December
In no der, GGc.. add for condensation 6'.c."72S
Difference I'm cost in December and The entire
............s.......tO
Add the estimate presented of..'.........'....l9h
Cost IN holder for the entire year........."..s9.
This result is derived from the data Of
fered us, and shows beyond question how
deceptive is the estimate given OF 405 cents
in the holder.
cts.
II las been shown that, giving Mr.. Anderson
credit for al he claims, the gas Will cost in
the 81
BY Messrs. Granger & Co.'S bid. which Is abso-
lutte and not estimated, the gas VIII cost In the
hold %
Showing In favor OF Granger. er.........,...."."23
The superintendent estimates the years
production az not less than 120,0O0,000 feet
net-on this the saving IA one year is
S27. 600; add TO this the appropriation for
remodellng the works, $4,000, and the
city is the loser in one year to the extent
of $4,000.
IL Is bv no means admitted that there
would be saved 233 cents on the present
cost. rs is claimed under the Anderson
plan. There is the same quantity OF coal
TO be handled and carboniZed, the retOrts
and furnaces being enlarged, which Is the
only change. IL seems very rosc-col0red
view that by this change twenty men
would then have only the amount OF labor
TO perform that forty-eig ght men do now.
Our estimate would divide this claim by
two, Granting a saving Of fourteen men,
8 cents. In Mr.. AndcrsOn's letter OF 22d
December last he estimates the increased
WELD of Gas from the coal at 3 to 10 per
cent grant a saving OF per cent. ON
cost OF coal, which Is 46-3 cents-nakes
the saving on the Anderson plan over pre-
sent cost by our estimate II cents; making
Sf cents difference in favor Of Granger
A guxrinO fA tIR HIfN on
100, 900, coo feet OF S40.SOO.
Referring 10 the proposal OF the Uniteo
GaS-Improyement Company, the committee
express the opinion that 1t IS not The true
policy OF the city to part with the owner
Shin of its works. The policy they recon-.
mend is 10 let out the manufacture OF ga'
delivered in the holder, which it has been
shown can be done at greatly less cost than
TO continue the present process-the city tf
take charge of the distribution and stand
between the contractor and the citizen. In
other respects the offer now presented tC
Won is much more favorable than that OF The
United Gas-Improyement Company.
For the reasons set forth above, and be
c,use they believe better gas will be fur
nisbei under it than under the Anderson
plan. and at greatly reduced cost. the two
ioint committees have instructed me to re
commend for your acceptance the pIoposa
OF Messrs. A. q. Granger d Co., when L
herewith presented.
Respectfully submitted.
+. Il. GLASGOW, Chairman.
After this report was read the Granger
nroposition, hitherto published, was read
MINORITY REPORT.
Mr.. Taylor offered a minority report
RICHMOND, January "a, 1883.
To the Honorable President and Member
of The Board Of AIdermeH'
Gentlemen,- undersigned regre
verv much TINT they are compelled TO dis
sent from the recommendation of The ma
jorIty Of the committee that contract b
made with Mr.. Granger, OF phlladeelphia
to furnish gas to the city for term Of year