San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1886-05-11
Nd PeopIe,s g Companv

The Peoples Gas company was incOr-
pOrated under the laws of the State on
the 18th Of March last, d. Humbird. A..
w. Clifford and J. p. NewcOmb as incOr-
porators. This incorporation proposed
to furnish gas to customers in the city
| Of San Antonio by the use Of the Bujac
water gas patent, at a price greatly
under the present rates charged by the
old gas monopoly. The use OF this pro-
cess is valuable right, representing
$4,000 capital, and with this right and
fair franchise from the city, the incor-
porators had reasonable expectations OF
enlisting the assistance Of citizens who
had money TO invest in legitimate enter
prises, holding out certainty Of reason
able profits. This prospectus alone was
sufficient to warrant the City Council
in passing liberal. fair ordinance plaC-
ing the new enterprise upon as equal
basis as possible with the old monopoly.
There are few corporate enterprises
carried through entirely by the incOr-
porators; in fact the law cOntemplates
that they may enlist associates IN the
prosecution OF their business, but II so
happens that the incOrpOratOrs OF the
Peoples Gas company are amply able to
carry out their enterprise without call
ing on our citizens for a cent to aid
them. However, the question as to
what policy would be pursued was held
in allegiance awaiting the action of the
City Council. Whether to bond the
company or to place the stock on the
market to secure the necessary capital
to put down the plant. The incOrpora-
tors have been fully assured OF the en-
tire practicability of making superior
gas BY the process they have secured,
but will take all precautions to protect
themselves from imposition or failure IN
this particular, before a dollar is invest
ed i'm the plant. The City Council seems
to have possessed itself of the idea that
this new enterprise was an enemy
threatening the safety and happiness oil
our citizens, instead OF benefactlon.
The new company asked nothing OF the
city but the privilege OF laying It's pipes
through the streets, and the right 10 1ur-
nish gas TO customers at reasonable
price, greatly under the rates OF the oid
monopoly. The City Council demands
that the new company put up "A cash de-
post to insure the repair OF streets,
while all the other corporations, the
water works, street railroad, and the old
gas monopoly are only subject TO the
penalties of a general ordinance. But
this stipulation, while unfair and I'M
friendly, was no bar to the Inauguration
of the enterprise. Not satisfied with the
leash deposit, they demand that BOND
in the sum of $4,000 be furnished in W
days, or the privileges granted will be
forfeited, which bond, as explained by
the City Attorney, would be subject to
forfeiture if the company failed to begin
work by the LIST of January, or violated
any of the conditions OF the ordinance.
This action of the City Council,
whether done at the instigatiOn of in
terested parties, or upon the voluntary
motion Of the City Council can be con
strued in no other way than covert hos
tility to the new enterprise. 1t would be
all entirely more manly and straightior-
ward action to have refused the grant
asked for than to hamper it with con
ditiOns likely to prevent cautious Dnsl-
ness men making an investment. Inc
City Council are supposed TO act as the
agents of the people, and as such, they
should, in all their acts, do their utmost
to secure the best results for the general
public, but their action upon the PeO-
ple's Gas company's petition would in
dictate that they care nothing for the
people. The discrimination against the
proposed enterprise is the first instance
in the history of our city government,
and is too significant to be excusable
upon any plea of anxiety to inaugurate
q new policy. 1t is for our citizens TO
say if they will stand it.