Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-05-13
A MINORITY REPORT
Senator Gallinger Against Extend
ing the Potomac Electric Go.
AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY TO DO SO
Arguments Of the Commissioners
Two Years Ago Brought Up.
EXISTING COMPANY ENOUGH

Senator Gallinger today, behalf Of
himself and Senators Hansbrough and Ba-
ker, as a minority Of the District commit
| tee, presented adverse report on
| the bill authorizing the extension of the
| Potomac Electric Company. The report
| says:
| Recently Congress was asked to incor
porate new gas company. but adverse ac-
| ton was taken by the committee on that
| bill on the ground that 1t is better policy
| to protect the investm made in the
| present plant and by congressional action
mold the existing corporation to a strict
| accountability to the people, both
| CARDS service and the price of its product.
| why the same reasoning should not apply
| to new electric light company does not
| appear clear to the undersigned. Two years
ago similar question to the one now under
| consideration was before Congress; an at
| tempt being then made to secure a charter
| for the National Light and Fuel Company.
| The bill was referred by the committee on
| the District of Columbia to the District
| commissioners, who made the following re-
| port"
The report of the Commissioners made
under date Of October 81. 1893. is then
| given. to an adverse effect, and the dis
| senting Senators continue: 1T will be OBJ
served that the Commissioners explicitly
stated that in this question the existing
| gas and electric companies have sufficient
| powers to render all the services for which
| the company proposed in this bill appears
| TO be intended, and it will be interesting
| 10 endeaVor to ascertain what changed
| conditions have arisen to warrant the same
| board OF Commissioners recommending fhe
| practical chartering of a new and rival
company in 1896. Acting upon the recon-
| nendatlon OF the Commissioners the Dis
| trlct committee made a report which is
| explicit and free from ambiguity. 1t op-
| poses the chartering of new company on
| the ground, first, that there is no need of
| second, Ia
not be torn up for such a DurpoSe: third
that 1t would be unjust to the existing
plant. the stock of which is mainly, if not
wholly owned in the District to allow
| foreign capital to come in and compete
| with it, and fourth, that the true policy
would be to encourage the extension, if
| necessary, or plants already existing own
| ed and operated mainly by citizens of the
Dlstrict. 1t Is further averrcd that 'cx-
| perience shows that the duplica ton of com
| panieS engaged in public and Drivat. serv
ice OF TINS KIND, doing in large part the
business OF the public generally results in
! the formation of combinations and trusts,
seldom, If ever, resulting IN the advance
| Ment OF the general welfare
The Proposed Company Considered.
| Let us for moment glance at the COM
pany which asks for the privileges granted
In this bill, and endeavor to ascertain what
| claims, If any, it has upon Congress Some
| years ago two young men from Minnesota
| established an electric light plant on the
| virginia side of the Potomac, at the Chain
| bridge. They erected poles and furnished
| light to Georgetown but when they asked
| Tor an extension of the plant, it was de-
| nied to them, and properly so, by the Com
| mlssiohers After expendng about $4,000
| tney gave up the struggle and sold their
| plant and equipment to the promoters of
| the company now seeking the privileges of
TINS Dill for the trifiing sum-so it is al
| lesed and not denied-of $4,000. The same
| parties afterward purchased an electric
lght plant az lexington. owned by Mr.
George Truesdell. one of the Commissioners
OF the District of Columbia, for $1,000 or
| thereabouts. Thus it will be seen that for
| si,oCo they came into possession of proper
| ~ that originally cost in the neighborhood
| of 100000.
| PERMITS Granted Without Authority.
| Those facts are undisputed. 1t is under
| stood that, acting under assurances of the
District Commissioners that they, the Com
| hlSsloAers, had authority to grant them
| eAtenslohs OIL Their line, they proceeded to
purchase machinery and to commence the
| erection OF a building, when they were en-
| joined by the Supreme Court of the District
| or columbia, the opinion of the court being
| tnat under existing laws the Commissioners
| had no right or authority to grant nsrmits
to the company. They now come to Con-
| gress to ask for legislation to lay conduits
IN certain portions Of the District, and to
| furnish electric light and power 1t ia
| proper to say in this connection that the
| original promoters of the company have Sc
| cured the cooperation of certain strong
| l n concerns In other parts of the
| country, and are doubtless fully eouipped
10 engage In the work they contemplate.
| The Old Argument Applied.
But it does not appear why the argu-
ment used in the report two years ago does
not apply in this case. 1t is foreign CANT
tai; the men connected with 1t are not resi-
| dents OF the District and they are grant
| ed privileges TO the exclusion of the exist
| ing company, which the former report as
| serted were fully able to make these ex
| tensions if granted the privilege by the
| Commissioners. A most remarkable change
| OF opinion seems to have taken place the
| reasons Tor which are not apparent to the
! undersigned.
| 1T is contended that the privileges grant
| ed in this bill do not extend to territory
now occupied by the old company, but it
| goes without the saying that if these
privileges are granted TO a corporation
! backed by abundant foreign capital it is
| only question of time when they will be
clamoring for additional legislation. 1t is
| row argued that the new company should
| have what they ask for, because they
| made moderate investment, upon the be-
| lief that the Commissioners hal the DOW
| er to grant them what they desired. Is it
| not reasonable to assume that after this
| company have invested a still larger sum
| of money they will raise the cry that the
| investment will be Observation-Disclosures the
| argument they make now-unless Congress
| comes to their relief and grants them adj
| ditional privileges?
| Reasons for Adverse Action.
| believing that the United States Electric
Lighting Company are abundantly able to
| occupy the territory granted to this new
company, whenever they shall be allowed
| to do so, and holding that sound public
policy dictates that the large amount of
| capital already invested in the business of
electric lighting by citizens of the District
| Of Columbia shall not be endangered in be-
| half Of non-residents, and that the future
| danger of unnecessarily tearing up the
| streets Of Washington should be obvated
| as far as possible, we cannot give our
| sent to the report Of the majority of the
| committee. We recommend that instead of
| passing the bill it be Indefinitely postponed.
| and that the companies be thus given to
| understand that it Is the opinion of Con-
| gress that the existing company should be
| granted the rights and privileges now pro-
| posed to be given to a rival corporation
Free Water for the Thirsty.
| To the Editor of The Evening Star: