The record-union., 1893-05-16

According to the engineers report"
observed Trustee Conkln, ''the Frank
| lin makes the best showing. | move.
therefore, that the contract for the com
Ing year be awarded to the Franklin
Company"
n. j. Treat, representing the lone Coal
| Company, said the latter had not offered
any coal Tor the test, for the reason. as
stated by him last week, that a twenty
| four-hours' test would not give correct
results on which to base an estimate for
years working.
The difference, he said, between the
performance of lone coal during the year
ending in May. 1884, and the twenty-four-
hours test of last week was 16 per cent
in favor Of Franklin coal. The difference
between the bids was 2l0 per cent. There
fore the actual value to The city is largely
to the credit of the lone article. The
figures presented by the lone Company
were lower than the cost to the city dur
| ing any year heretofore.
j. NJ. Avery, representing the Empire
lone coal, said it was a very complex
matter to get down to the intrinsic value
of coal. He regarded Mr.. Treats criti-
cism as very good, and in his opinion, a
test to be satisfactory should extend for
more than tWenty-four hours. AS be-
tween Mr.. Treats coal and that he repre-
sented there was difference in the lat
ter's favor by actual test in the Phoenix
Mill. Mr.. Treat relies upon the result of
the use of his coal during the year 1891,
but he Avery relies upon the test of his
coal now submitted.
Mr.. Avery confessed he could not UNDER
stand the Franklin coal test, because that
coal does not do the work at other mills
that it does at the Water Works. 1t
struck him as being very singular cir
cumstance, and the matter should be
sifted to the very bottom.
Mr.. Hall, representing the Franklin
COAL claimed that it had been shown that
his coal was the cheapest, aud he relied
on the engineers figures to bear him out
| in this statement.
Mr.. Treat replied that the Franklin coal
had made record last year, and he held
it should stand on its record. For every
million gallons of water pumped it cost
the city sll. The difference between the
| cost OF Franklin coal in the market end
! the Wallsend is more than 81 a ton in
favor of the Franklin coal. The differ
ence in the bids here presented is only q
per cent.
While consumers in San Francisco were
paying considerably over dollar per ton
more for Wallsend Sidney than they
were willing to pay for Franklin, never
theless in the Sacramento Water Works
two tons OF Franklin coal pumped 100, 600
gallons more water than the same amount
! OF Wallsend, thus proving that the ex-
perlence OF the consumers in San Fran
cisco and the result obtained in the Water
| Works here were at variance
Mr.. Treat contended that the working
test Of lone coal shows that it has been
the cheapest in the past. He assumed
that the sample of Franklin coal sub
mitted for the present test was clear of
dirt, etc, while that could not be claimed
for all the coal used during the year.
Mr.. Hall addmitted that the twenty
four-hour test would not tell Just what it
would cost the city per year for coal; it
was simply to test the relative values OF
the coal.
Trustee Conklin reviewed the past few
years experience with different Goals. and
asked Engineer Renwick to explain the
cause of the different results obtained.
Mr.. Renwick then explained the
method of testing coal and the results OBJ
tanned by each days working of the
pumps. In case of ire alarms, he said,
| the pressure had to be run up to forty
pounds. Tests made heretofore were not
made by him, and all he knew was that
! figures had been presented to the board
that were not borne out by actual expert
| ence. He denied that the lone coal had
| shown better results elsewhere than in
/ the Water Works under his management