Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-08-15
The Gas Company's s.LOan.''

Inc 00S NOu R6my "AO0ns
To the Editor of The EVENING STAR
1t seems to be the custom of some writer's to
sheer at what they cannot answer and to de-
nounce as GROWERS" those who happen to say
anything harsh OF corporations in which they
may be interested.
I beg to say that Merchant" in his commu-
nication of this evening. is guilty Of gram
NAUTICAL error when he says 'the writer of these
articles seemed to think" &C. as well as gross
ignorance of facts, for the writer Of first COM
municatiOn and my self are as distinct as "Mer-
chant and myself.
With the wisdom Of Solomon Merchant
says 1.-The writer of these articles seemed to
think that the gas company is not entitled to
the same protection against dishonest patrons
ts IS required by private persons in ordinary
/ take 1t that the gas company has the
same tact in distinguishing between honest
and dishonest persons any one else if they
choose to make use of it. a I'D has the same re-
course against dishonest consumer that '.Mer-
chant has One recourse the gas company
had, and which II practised until the deposit"
business was perfected, was TO make an honest
man pay a rascas debt in order to get supply
oi gas for himself. What would be thought of
a landlord who would seek TO make an incom-
ing tenant pay rent left due by an outgoing
tenant. or OF u merchant of any class who would
try 10 make his honest customers pay the debts
Of his dishonest?
In regard 10 the tenants being able to avoid
makin- deposit by filing his landlords writ
ten consent To have the gas turned on-that is
10 concession on the part OF the LAS company
as the landlord makes himself responsible for
hl> tenant in such "A case, and the gas company
runs no risk The suggestion that III tenant 5
reputation is good he will have no trouble in
getting such permission is insinuation
worthy of one Who'll In defending u "cormorant'
hides himself behind Il I" nom de plume" There
il one landlord whom 1 could name, and he
counts his tenants by the scores, who is said
never To- give ,uch a permission to turn on gas.
Are all his tenants dishonest?
The right 20 growl at what Is believed 10 be
an imposition Is one which every one is entitled
& exercise, and the right to question the action
o. any corporation where il is seemingly with
nah. 4 aqy. oh
not abridge by his mud-ringing, To "a
classic phrase" j. d. ODoNNELL.
August 18th, 1855.
"Nerehant'' and the Gas Company.
To the Editor OF the EvFN.NG STAR.
.Otice that Merchant in his defense OF the
Gas company says that, "if tenant will file
his landlords written consent to have the gas
turned on, he can get all the gas he wants with
out making Il deposit While / would not
charge Merchant" with an Intentional mis-
representation, it is very certain that he Is
ignorant as to the facts, or has not told the
10 sign printed consent to- have the ga.
turned on TOR one of my tenants, which did
them to turn on the gas. subsequently,, when
the tenant left, and another asked 10 have tho
gas turned on, Inc was informed that II would
been paid, and on going to ascertain about il,
was informed that Uas responsible for The ten
dHts gus OIL, and was shown the''consent' had
signed on their books, and was astOunded 10
ind, printed in the finest type, in the so-called
consent, An agreement by which was made re
sponSibie for the gas furnished. or course / de-
nounced II "a a fraud but that was all the good
II DID. had TO pay the s12 before my new
tenant could get any gas notwis hstandng
had lost the months rent also. The COMPANY
then told me that they would not furnish the
defaulting tenant with gas elsewhere until he
refunded the amount due, they had a right
under their charter TO refuse until he paid up
and that when received they would refund it &c
me- Notwithstanding, in a few weeks there
after they were supplying this same party with
gaS at another building. and when called on
the Company to fulfil Its promise, they excused
themselves by saying that there some
doubt as to their legal right refuse gas To tho
party, and that they had done 1t without ex
acting the back pay.
Now, why a landlord should be responsible,
for his tenants 2as bill any more than for hi,
Rrocers or doctors bill, think H. will troubI,
Merchant or any one else To explain. Tn,
landlord has 10 run the risk of losing his rent
and why should not the gas COMPANY take H.,
same risk that he and the grocer and Others 90
especially as they have a moAOpOly of furnish,
ing the gas, which is as much a necessity n,
water. while the landlord and the grocer do no
have monopoly in their line? The fact is tn,
whole gas business IL an Infamous outrayeou,
MONOPOLY, which ought not to be perrlitted I,
exist at all. As gas Is an absolute public neces
sity, why should not the public own and rrr
the gas works the same as IL does the waite
works. Can any one tell why not. They do 4
in Richmond and Alexandria and elsewhere
why not here: Last year the gas works In
Alexandria paid surplus of 3, 900 In to the pub
lie treasury. AT the same rate one hunare,
thousand at least should be paid by the ga
works here to our District revenues. .Mer
chants communication reads 10 me though
II should be signed Owner Of gas stock" rathe
than Merchant. CITIZEN.