St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-09-05


in passing that 1t was admitted by Mr..
Pugh that the price of gus at Cicero.
ILL.,, where that system Is in use, Is Sl.50
per 1000 cubic feet.
Third-Mr. Pugh colld not or would
not state who his hackers were.
except MIR. Rev (whO binds him
self to nolhing(. and could not
or would not satisfy your COM
mittee as to what security he would
offer the city as a pledge OF good faith
and to indemnify II, cOntentinx himself
with general Statements too easily made
and repudiated.
Fourth-The st. Paul Gasllght COM
pany claims the exclusive right to use
the streets tor gas mains. IL Is COLI
coded upon all hands and by the city
passed. the litigation that would ensue
would, under the terms Of the Ordin-
ance. prevent any work being done
under it for four years. and perhaps for
a much longer period. even il the Ordi-
nance were at length held valid. Your
committee is of the opinion that 1t would
not be wise for the city to grant fran
chise which could not take effect for
four or five years, especially when it
has the right to purchase the plant OF
the present gas company at an appraised
valuation Jan. l, 1897.
Fifth--lt does not seem to you: COM
mittee that Mr.. Pugh has sufficiently
considered local conditions in fOrmu-
lating his proposition as to prices, and it
seems more than doubtful whether he
could furnish gas at the prices named
under the peculiar conditions of trans
purlatOn and climate that obtain in st.
Paul. For instance, it appears that dur
tlA AE A 1,A N,,I
Gaslight company spent something over
$4,000 in thawing and repairing pipes
and mains I'M ured by frost and freezing,
and suffered leakage on the same &C
count amounting to more than
26.000,000 cubic feet, also that gas
coal costs about 50 per ton more in
st. Paul than in any of the places cited
by Mr.. Pugh's attorney.
Sixth-Ihere appears TO be no general
dissatisfaction among our people with
the present conduct of the business of
the st. Paul Gaslight company. That
company has recently made large reduc-
tions in its prices which affect about 90
per cent of the gas consumers Of the
city, and promises to make further re-
auctions if those made result in even
approximately proportional increases
in consumption. 1t is worthy of notice
that no citizens, or committees repre-
Senting cltizeus, appeared before your
committee to urge the passage of the
proposed ordinance.
Seventh - The prices at present
charged in this city seem as low as, and
i'll many instances lower than, the
prices charged in other cities generally
speaking) even if no allowance be made
for differences in conditions.
Eivbth--'Ena ST Paul (,astipht nOn.
pany is owned and its bonds are largely
held by our citizens, who should not be
wantonly injured, as injury to them
means injury to the whole city, or un-
less There he some plain and equal ben
eft 10 be obtained as a result.
Nlnth-COmpeting gas companies do
not mean cheaper gas. The history Of
the business is that after short period
of competition division of territory or
consolidation results, and the price Of
gas is increased to cover the cost OF the
gas war; also that thereafter prices are
kept higher than they otherwise would
have been Oh account of the increased
Investment and increased interest
CHARGES. 1t is conceded that there are
not today two gas companies on the
same street anywhere i'll the world,
doing competing business.
Tenth-Ihe city now has .he right,
Jan. l, 1S97-a little more than two
plant of the st. Paul Gaslight company
at ali appraised valuation. If another
gas franchise were granted the value of
this valuable right of purchase would
be destroyed. as it would then be neces-
sary. in order to make the right effective,
to purchase both plants, or the dupli-
Gated plant, If consolidation had Oc-
CURED. Your committee is of the
opinion that 20 destroy this right OF
purchase would be wholly inexcusable.
In this connection, your committee
represents that the president and attor-
ney for the st. Paul Gaslight company
made the following statement to the
committee, which was apparently made
in good faith. and is certainly worthy
OF careful consideration before any
proposition to permit rival works 10 be
considered:
The st. Paul Gaslight company offers
TO sell to the city now or after the next
session OF the legislature all its works.
business and rights, at q price which,
last two years, will enable the city to
pay the interest of the gas bonds now
outstanding and make net profit from
The business or per centper annun,a and
to take its pay in the AZ per cent bonds
of the city-the present bonded debt of
the company being assumed by the
city.
Eleventh-The rights of a new COM
pany TO lay pipes i'll all the streets of
this city means the possible destruction
OF ali our pavements, which are of i'm
mense value, resulting in untold loss
and Inconvenience to the city. Mr..
Pugh offers to replace pavements re.
moved and to keep them in repair for
one year; but granting that this is pos.
sible, and it is vigorously denied. the
consequences Of tearing them up would
undoubtedly be quickly felt after the
termination OF that period and could
not fail 10 be more than serious. We
regard this consideration alone, under
the circumstances, as an inSuperable
obstacle to granting new franchise.
Twelfth-lt is claimed by the ST. Paul
Gaslight company and by its counsel
that the common council of this city has
under the city charter no general au-
tnorlty to grant street rights to any
new gas company. Your committee has
not assumed such to be the fact, but
considers the claim worthy of mention.
Thirteenth-lt is claimed by the st.
Paul Gaslight company and its counsel,
apparently with absolute confidence,
that that company has the exclusive
right under its charter to lay gas mains
and pipes in the streets. alleys and
other public grounds of this city; that
its charter being an act of the legisla-
ture and having been acted upon
by the company is contract
and is protected from impairment
by the constitutions of this state and of
the United States. Numerous cases
to this effect were cited to US blythe
counsel for the company, and in our
Judgment they justify the company's
claim. The counsel for Mr.. Pugh in
effect seemed to concede this point
when he SAID to the committee that ITO
break down the gas company's charter
would be an uphill job" 1t seems to
your committee that under these con.
ditiOnS it would be most unjust both to
the gas company and the public that
either should be subjected to the con-
sequences of the litigation that would
surely result. There can he no doubt
of this: That when the legislature
granted the gas pany's charter and