The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-02-06
THE GAS QUESTION.


ments to the natural-gas ordinance Their
action may have very direct and immediate
influence for good or i'll on the business inter-
sssts of the city. The question is whether the
present ordinance shall be held absolutely
,perfect in every respect, even at the risk OF
.pro1onging the present deadlock and delaying
the introduction of gas several months, and
perhaps indefinitely, or whether it shall be
amended in two particulars, with an assur-
ance of an early and abundant supply. The
journal, speaking for the general welfare and
prosperity of the city, for its best interests at
home and its reputation abroad, thinks the
amendments should be made. The city IS
losing money, losing business and losing
prestige every day the present situation con-
tinues. It is becoming a laughingstock
throughout the State. The State papers are
calling Indianapolis an ''overgrown country
town" because it has not solved the gas prob
lem months ago. It could not have been
satisfactorily solved months ago, butt can be
now. The amendments asked for by the
Indianapolis company seem fair and reasona-
bic. They commend themselves to unpreju-
diced business men and to very many OF the
stockholders of the Trust. If the Indianapo-
liz company had asked these amendments
three months ago they would have been made
without moments hesitation. The Journal
favors them because it thinks them fair and
reasonable, and one company with gas at our
doors regards them as material For the
game reason we should favor them if asked for
by the Trust. 1t is no argument against the
amendments to say the Trust does not desire
them. The Trust does not own the city and
should not be permitted to dictate its policy.
The managers of the Trust represent private
as well as public interests. and their recent
course and present attitude scarcely sustain
the theory of disinterested benevolence and
pure public spirit. The movement has
drifted from it's original purpose. 1t was
organized to supply the people with gas at
ordinance rates and to insure competition.
It's attitude for weeks past has been in oppo-
sition to both objects. Three months
ago the indianapolis company was
The obstructionist and the Trust
REPRESENTED public interests. Now the situa-
ton is reversed Then the Indianapolis COM
pany was trying to dictate terms to the city;
now it is the Trust Neither should be per-
mitted to do anything of the kind. The in
ierests of Indianapolis are more important
than those of either or both companies. The
Trust succeeded in bringing the Indianapolis
company to its senses, now let the Council
bring the Trust to its senses. The Council
represents the people, not part of them; the
interests of the city, not those of any particu-
ar company or movement The proposed
amendments should be considered on their
merits precisely as if the Trust did not exist.
The question is, are the provisions of the or
dinance which it proposed to change essential
or important to the protection of the peoples
rights or interests, and would the desired
amendments endanger or injure themf We
cay no, and again no. The provisions serve
no important purpose, and the amendments
are such as any cautious capitalist would ask
for. Under one provision any company would
be completely at the mercy of the Council,
and under the other completely at the mercy
of the people. In one case log rolling coun-
ell might bankrupt, and in the other hostile
public sentiment might infict serious harm
upon any company accepting the ordinance
rs it stands Capital does not voluntarily
assume such risks. The Trust will not, if it
lie WISE Prominent members of the Trust
have said they can have the ordinance
changed at any time, whenever they want to.
Their policy is to accept the ordinance first
and get the changes afterward. That may
be ell right for them, but it seems the other
company does not choose to take that risk.
To ask for the changes in advance is at least
as honest course as the other. The chan ges
may or may not benefit the Indianapolis COM
pany, they certainly can not hurt the Trust
fifty or a hundred miles of pipe year it can
still do So and if it expects intends to do
30 it should be glad to have other companies
restricted. We are not able to see any fair
ground upon which opposition to these amend
ments is based. The consumer is protected
as to price by schedule or rates, and the
Trust, which claims to be ready to supply
the city with gas, can not possibly
be prevented from doing by
the change in the ordinance. The Journal
has no other object in the world than to
secure gas. We have ever advocated that
which gave the best promise to accomplish
such result. We are not committed to one
company, or to two. We want all the COM
panies, with all their gas and ell their capital.