Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1896-11-23


$40. p per year. a saving over gas per year
of S335L2S; or, reckoned on basis OF
what Pittsburg coal can be purchased FOR
which we presume was the kind used IN
making test of October Is, 1896, 5l2 cents
per bushel or $1.37l2 per ton, would amount
to S6.6OL67 making a difference in favor OF
coal of 1888.
We would like to have the water Board
explain why il was that there was so much
more coal consumed in making the test OF
September II than was consumed IN
making the test of October 18th. 1t VIII
ybe remembered that in the test OF Septem-
Der l4th there was consumed GA bushels
of coal. while the engines made 1880
revolutions and pumped S,9SS.56O gallons
of water. and showed an engine duty OF
43. 723 700 foot pounds; while at the test
made October 18th, there was consumed
$40 bushels of coal. and the engines made
IS. 532 revolutions anud pumped 9l67,256 gal
Ions of water. and developed a duty of
~. 97O,O 600 foot pounds, or a duty in excess
of what was obtained in the test of Sep
TENDER 18th of S0.2463OO foot pounds
We hope the Water Board Will not try TO
explain this excessive difference in the
duties obtained in the two tests by
importing it to the inferior quality of our
home coal In order to enable the public
to judge intelligently in regard to this
controversy. it will be necessary for us to
go back twelve months or more, when a
committee from the Trades Assembly, in
connection with the miners committee,
waited on the Water Board with view
of inducing them TO substitute coal in
place of natural gas as fuel AT the Wheel
ing water plant. as il would give en-
ploymcnt to quite a number of men who
are citizens and taxpayers Of the city.
and would leave seven or eight thousand
dollars per year in the city, which would
be spent with the business people and
would rebound TO the city's interest gen.
orally: whereas. by the use Of gas, this
money is paid to a foreign corporation and
scarcely any of il is spent in the city. The
Water Board agreed with our committee
that it would be to the best interests of the
city to have the money that was paid for
fuel, left in the city, and promised our
committee that they would make test
with coal. and if there was not too great
a difference i'm the cost of coal over gas,
that they would be willing to adopt coal
as fuel. our committee left with the UNI
derstanding that there would be a test
made in the near future but after waiting
a considerable time and hearing nothing
from the Board. our committee waited on
them again. At this meeting the Board
seemed to have forgotten that they had
d,
but after considerable hesitation told us
that the boilers were not in condition to
make a test, but would have a new set Of
boilers in in ninety days and then they
would give US a test with coal. We waited
ninety days and the new boilers were put
in. but We received no word from the
Board in regard to making the test, and
after waiting ninety days longer. and
still not hearing anything from them, our
committee visited them again, and was
somewhat surprised when they informed
us that they did not remember of ever
agreeing TO make the test with coal
Before We left however. they agreed TO
make the test, and promised they would
let us know in time 80 we could be present
and see the test made Shortly after this
We received notice that the test was 60
ing TO be made on September 18th, so It
is plain to be seen it was only through the
persistent euorts of the committee that
the test was ever made, and not through
any desire on the part of the Board; and
when it was made it was under the most
unfaVorabie circumstances, every obstacle
was placed i'm the way of coal, and every
thing was done that could he done in or
der TO consume all the coal possible. We
are convinced that the test was not made
to determine whether coal or gas was
the cheapest fuel. but in making the test
everything was done that could be done
to try to demonstrate that coal was more
costly fuel than gas. We said in former
report. in connection with the test Of
September 18th. when there were ga BUSH
els of coal consumed and an engine duty
developed of only 43. 723 700 foot pounds,
that one of two facts was demonstrated:
either the city Of Wheeling through its
agents the Water Board, had been inn
posed upon by the Holly Manufacturing
Company in accepting machinery that
did not come up to the guaranteed duty.
or otherwise. the men operating the ma
chinery were incompetent.
This placed the Water Board in rather
an unenviable position, and was the means
OF bringing about the second test that was
made with coal ON October 18th. The
Board. i'm order to vindicate themselves
and uphold the reputation of the Holly
Companys machinery. brings an expert
from Pennsylvania and they make pri-
yate test with coal without notifying our
committee If this test of October %th
WAS honestly made for the purpose of de-
termining the relative cost of coal and
gas as fuel and we would infer from their
renort of that test that that was the OBJ
iect then our committee, being party TO
the controversy. il the Board had any de-
sire to be fair in the matter, it was Ger
tainlv their duty to inform our committee
when the test was going TO be made when
they failed to do; but we are led TO De-
Heve the test was Lot made for that pur-
nose but Tor the purpose of UNFOLDING
the reputation of the machinery and their
object was to develop the greatest duly
possible with the least possible consunp-
ton of coal. and i'm making this test
whether 1t was the intention of the Board
or not. they have demonstrated the fact
that the city water plant can be operated
much cheaper with coal than gas as
figures taken from their own report VIII
show. According to the report Of the test
of September 18th, it will cost $sll.oi less
to operate the plant with home coal than
gas. and according TO the report OF the
test of October 2Sth. it will cost 9 35t2s less
to operate the plant with coal than with
gas. the Water Board finding that the
plant can be operated cheaper with coal
than gas. are trying to manufacture ad-