Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1895-07-31

counts III q Very Satisfactory
Manner, and Entirely Refute the
Silly Arguments and Arraign-
ments Which Have Been Pub
ished Recently.
The detailed financial statement pre-
pared by Secretary W. H. Fee, in &C
cordance with a resolution Of the Gas
Trustees, and which was submitted to
the Council Committee on Accounts a
few days ago, was laid before Council,
last evening, as will be seen by a refer
ence to the details of the session, print
ed elsewhere. The exhibit covers the
whole of the year 1894, and the first
six months of 1895, including the un-
paid bills of 1893, paid in 1894, and is
not only exhaustive in its character
both as to gas making and the mainte-
nance and operation of the electric light
plant, but completely refutes the
charges and insinuations of misman-
agement made so freely against this
city department, and renders supremacy
ridiculous certain hysterical publica-
tons. recently made.
One of the charges and criticisms
made very freely in a certain quarter
was that the expenses OF the gas works
for 1892, when 107759,SOO feet Of gas
was made. was but s63, 4SZ59 while
in 1898 when only 100000 more feet
Of gas were produced, the expenses
were S92.67492, and there has been a
great outcry to know how such a state
of affairs could exist. The explanation
is very simple. and 10 those familiar
with the facts, the criticism has had no
weight whatever. and has only been OF
passing interest as showing hostility to-
ward the department and an Unborn de-
sire 10 be sensational and naturally
inherited disposition TO lie.
In 1892 a coal bill Of S15,659.65 was
left unpaid. and the net expenses of the
works for gas making thus figured at
but So. 4S7.59. The bill was paid in
1Sq3 If the unpaid items and the total
of 500. 4S759 be added. the result is
S7914724. which makes quite a differ
ence.
Another item for the carping critics
was the fact that in the statement of
the works for 1893. published by the
city. there was an item of S3.21710 for
public lamps. when there had been no
public lamps. other than electric light,
for a ear and half. This was con-
elusive evidence of dishonesty to the
shallow-pated sensat;onalists. The
facts are that the words public
lamps lighting and extin-
gushing" We're inserted, through some
clerical error in the City Clerks report,
while the proper item, attending calls
and adjusting meters" was omitted.
The sum of S3.2lT1O set down for
lamps. should have been on account Of
meters. as everybody familiar with the
works knew. and as everyone could
have ascertained by making call at
the gas Office
Another mares nest was found by the
critics as to the electric light plant.
They found an item i'm the statement
of 1892 of S14,032.56 for maintenance
and operation of the light plant. while
in 1893 the total was $30142.42. This
Nas evidently crooked, and they as
sumed a dramatic pose, and cackled
over the thing, and wanted TO know
how it was Nobody paid any atten-
ton to the matter for the reason that
even the school children of the city
knew that the electric light plant only
ran five months I'm 1892, while it ran
twelve months in 1898.
But the critics reached the climax of
lunacy IN their pratJling over the item
of services" They didn't know what
Services meant. but they felt sure
the item represented some sort Of
charges for personal services of some
body for something they knew not
what. and they got red in the face Overt
the idea that $500 per week should
be expended for this sOrt Of thing.
Here was evidently something which
required investigation and deep prob
ing. and the organ of the indictments
wrote the thing up eXhaustively and
dwelt upon the item with editorial
earnestness, while everybody in town
laughed. for the very dogs and cats
knew thar the city could sell no gas
unless service pipes were laid by the
Board from the street mains to the
houses 10 be supplied. and that the
charges on the books under the head o.
of services" represented the cost Of
nine and labor. paid by the Board since
the works were owned by the city.
Still another standing subject of at
tack has been the City's electric light
nl9nt and the assertion has been made
many times THAI the city would have
saved money il it had bought It's street.
lighting electricity from a private
company
Let's see if this is true.
The private company bid was about
81 per light per year
The exhibit laid before Council last
night shows that the cost per lamp per
YEAR i'm 1894 was S6060. and for the
first six months of 1895 was at the rate
of S5434i
Now let's see what it costs in other
cities:
per nicht
Cents
Philadelphia ......'''' '''''''.''''''''' =, d. 70
New York ......-......-.... .-'... q. p,
Lynn. Mass .....--.....- '''' D. IN
EoSt0u ...... .--.- ',. ~
Detroit .--.--.---- 81 al
Worcester. Mass .........-.-....- - ~
Milwaukee --.--..-.. -.---.---.' s.. ,
Duluth .......... .-.-..-.--'''''-'' %. -
Reading Pa. ...----...--- ..''-..'' -'''' %. ~