Evening star., 1897-02-03
The Subject Discussed at Some Length
in the House.
BoTH COMPANIES were ATTACKED
Lively Debate on the District Ap-
preparation Bill.
OLD BOA RD CLAIMs

ings In the House closed Yesterday after
noon Mr.. Pitney of New Jersey continued
his remarks upon the electric lighting SUBJ
ject. In the course of his speech Mr. Pit
ney said that last year just before the
committee of which he was a member be-
gan the consideration of the electric light
ing item of the appropriation bill he was
waited upon and warned against submit
ting amendments in favor of the Potomac
company. He knew that the warning was
based on the fact that his district was
close one and it was supposed that his re-
election was matter Of doubt. He paid no
attention to the warning, however, and the
next day local paper published two or
three columns attacking him. He supposed
that the paper was paid dollar line for
the matter. He understood that the Com
missioners had been also attacked in a
similar way.
Policy of the United States Company.
Mr.. Pitney referred with considerable
spirit to the policy which he said the
United States Electric Lighting Company
had adopted toward Congress and the
Commissioners. He had been notified that
many Of his friends and some of the banks
held the stock of the United States COM
pany. The attorney for that company had
gone so far as to write him as follows:
MANY Of your warm friends mere are
deeply interested in the continued pros
perlty of this company, and would exceed
fngly regret to see you unadvisedly aid in
impairing its standing or IN lending your
strong support to it's competitor"
This statement was made IN letter
written by Gen. W. W. Dudley. attorney
for the United States Electric Lighting
Company. 1t was made public by Mr.. Pit
ney last evening and consists Of a dozen
typewriter pages reviewing the history of
the United States Electric Lighting Com
pany and objecting to competition in the
electric lighting of the city.
The Questions to BE Considered
Mr.. Baker of New Hampshire followed
Mr.. Pitney. He said:
The question for the members of this
House is over and above all the question of
the service which is rendered to the people
of the District of Columbia; the question
whether or not the pavements of this city
have been cut up and rendered Less valua-
ble by giving the service to this new COM
pany, which, the gentleman says, is a COM
peflng company: and whether the people of
the District and the people In the District
nave not been put ~ great Inconvenience,
less and danger by the. cutting up of these
rev pavements These are the questions
to which we should devote ourselves in
considering this proposition. No one, sup
Tose has ever fotpd any fault with the
Commissioners for Permitting either COM
pany to extend its, linsiin the proper order
in which those lines wetuld naturally be ex
tended
"The complaint has Come because the one
compahy has been, given privileges and
powers over and beyond those of the other
company. The complaint has come because
the one company, having already it's under
ground conduits laid inithe streets, has not
been permitted to run wires through those
Gonduits. The confplaiht has come because
when conduits haYe been laid and wires
laid i'll them by one company, the other
company has been given powers which nat
urally would haEa1 gone ito the company
having already it's wires laid and, uye-
sume, vice versa. But in any event ] do
not understand that this House or the Com
missioners, or any person connected with
either company can justify the digging up
of miles of concrete pavement to permit
one company to render a service which the
other could have rendered without being
Obliged to disturb the pavements for over
three blocks; and all this when this House.
by power which 1t has exercised for years
and years, controls the limit of price at
which electric lighting shall be furnished.
If the limit of last year not low
enough. 1t is within the power and the
policy of this House to make it low enough.
l do not care how low you Co. If you do
not destroy the lighting. For these reasons
one company or the other company is or
ought to be as good to this House, to the
Commissioners and to the people of the Dis
trict of Columbia as the other. Personally
l 40 not know, SO far / am aware, one
stockholder ia either company, except one
individual, and l have not seen him or
heard from him for over year.
An Outrage ON the People.
But there is general complaint from one
end Of this city to the other-not in the
newspapers alone. but from all the people
that tine Commissioners have committed an
outrage upon the people of the District in
exercising the power which they have exer
cised in this city. And 1 take it that the
newspapers of this city have done nothing
in the world except to voice the sentiments
of the people of the District. If the gentle
man knows of their being bribed in one con-
nee tion or another, / have ne objection to
his airing 1t upon this floor or anywhere
else. I have no such knowledge. But 1t is
generally understood In this city that there
was trade by which certain public light
ing and certain electric companies were
turned over to another company: that 1t
was done in pursuance of an understanding