The record-union., 1893-05-23
THE COAL BIDS.
They Warm the Board of Trustees
Up Well.
The lone Coal Company Captures the
Contract After Very
Torrid Session.

matter of the acceptance of the bids for
supplying the water works with coal had
been laid over one week. The time for
action had come, and he moved that the
bid of the Sacramento Coal Company be
received.
A. j. Treat of the lone Coal Company
said he would like to present few facts
and figures to the board. Among other
things he made the following statement:
At the afternoon session of your hon
orable board last Monday the Chief En-
gineer of the Water Works gave the re-
suits of several tests made to determine
the value of certain Goals. He stated that,
according to these tests, Franklin coal
would pump million gallons of water
for 81 80. This was the best performance
OF all the Goals submitted for trial.
Inasmuch as one of your Trustees
moved that the bid for Franklin coal be
accepted l will address you upon the
nature of the fuels submitted in compe-
titiOn, the relation OF the tests thereto,
and why Franklin may not be the cheap
est fuel for the city notwithstanding the
apparent showing.
In these twenty-four tests $40 tons of
Franklin coal pumped 4,46l,000 gal
Ions of water; st tons of Wallsend Sgd
ney pumped 4.3l0,0O gallons of water.
Reducing this down to what each coal
will do pound for pound, the singular
discovery is made that one pound of
Franklin will pump 42.09 gallons of
water, and one pound of Wallsend will
pump only 4l.05, difference in favor OF
Franklin Off per cent. 1t is
a sELF-EvIDENT PROPOSITION
That the price of Goals in the San Fran
cisco market is regulated by their per-
formance-their steam-producing capac-
ity. For instance, Franklin sells cheaper
than Wallsend by rs per cent. 1t may
therefore reasonably be supposed that
Wallsend coal is the better fuel CONNER
cially by 26 per cent. The wonderful
performance of Franklin as against
Wallsend leads US to inquire why its
value has not been sooner recognized;
also, what position it occupies among the
fuels used on this coast.
The United States Government deter
mines the economic value of all Goals by
carefully ascertaining their performance
under boiler, and comparing the result
as against a cord of oak wood. In re-
cent trial by the Government of twenty
varieties of Goals, for the purpose of de-
termining the cheapest fuel for it's use on
this coast, it was found that ,646 pounds
of Australian coal, such as Wallsend
Sydney, are equal to a cord of oak wood,
while 1852 pounds of Franklin are re-
Quired to equal one cord of oak wood,
difference of Il per cent. in favor of Aus
tralian coal.
does per cent. more work per pound of
fuel used than Wallsend when burned in
the Sacramento Water Works. There is
thus difference of 43 per cent. between
results obtained by the Government en-
gineers and those by the Engineer of
these Water Works.
l do not in any sense intend to question
the ability OF your Chief Engineer or his
integrity. From my personal acquaint-
ance with him L have found him to be
ohliging and accommodating at all times,
and thoroughly competent as a mechanic.
do not question the thoroughness of the
method. so far as it goes, by which he OBJ
tuned the figures on fuel, read by him to
this board. What L do question is the
VALUE OF THE MATERIAL
He handled. 1t has been stated that
Franklin has never beenused by the city,
and that a test was absolutely necessary
to determine its value. Let us see how
the Government looks upon this newly
discovered fuel:
Pounds.
To equal one cord of wood requires
To equal one cord of wood requires
2232
A difference in favor of Franklin Of lis
Or per cent.
1t would thus appear that these two
Goals are nearly equal in commercial
value. Bearing in mind the figures
stated, let us see what Seattle coal has
done in the past, for then we may deter
mine what Franklin would do under
similar conditions. In May, 1891, the
Superintendent of the Water Works pre-
sented to your board a report from the
Chief Engineer, which stated that on a
test
Seattle screenings had raised with
the Stevens pump .............. l. 77l 352
Seattle screenings had raised with
lhe hoAy uihp-...-...-........-......... 339,64S
Ill 900
Six thousand pounds of coal were re-
qulred to do this work, which at the rate
OF the bid, 50 80 per long ton, made the
cost of pumping these z 200 gallons
50 90. This performance decided the
Trustees in favor OF Seattle screenings.
and the award was made accordingly, At
the end of a year the cost of pumping L.
100000 gallons was found to have risen
from the test showing Of So 62 to IS 81, an
increase in expense to the city of over 33
per cent.
This showing so impressed the board
that in the following year the contract
was again awarded to the Seattle people
At the end of this year it was found that
the cost OF pumping 100000 gallons was
as low as Sll 07. This was an increase of
S3,4S2 3S over the previous years of a
per cent. The only excuse | have heard
given for this increase of a per cent. in
and for which increase each taxpayer of
this city pays his proportion, was that
the pressure had been increased from
25 TO 80 pounds. Your board was also
informed by the representatives of the
Seattle company that the rising and the
falling OF the river had something to do
with 1t. This was probably intended as
\ JOKE UPON THE TAXPAYERS.
The company which l represent has
always been willing to furnish cheap
fuel. As l have already stated to the
board, had the Did of the lone Coal and
Iron Company been accepted last year
the city would have saved y per cent. or
S., ,005 Is; and while il is claimed that
there was an increase of pressure, which
would change the basis of the perform
ance of lone coal in the years lS90-gl, |
hold that this large sum Of money would
more than cover that increased pressure
and still leave lone coal as the cheapest
fuel for the city.
/ cannot presume otherwise than the
Seattle coal people furnished an honest
measure aud an honest quality OF fuel
last year, when the city paid SlI OF for
each million OF gallons pumped. 1t can
fairly be presumed that the company was
satisfied with the coal il was furnishing:
that ii was giving the city fair value. Ii
not why did it not give the city a better
quality OF fuel? l have the right TO sup
pose that the performance of Franklin
coal in pumping a million gallons OF
water for s. 36 would be lived up to
throughout the year IN case Franklin
coal receives the award. The difference
between the test showing OF 81 So and the
actual performance tor the year lust
passed OF Sll 07 is so per cent. in favor of
IL y nN