Evening star., 1897-02-26
AN ADVERSE REPORT
Action of the Senate Committee on
Mr.. Sands Nomination.
His FORMER CRITICISMS READ
Three of the Members ONLY Voted
in His Favor.
NINE WE'RE AGAINST HIM


| cided to make adverse report on the
nomination of Francis P. B. Sands to be
Commissioner of the District of Columbia
The committee met at IL O'Clock today,
every member being present except Senator
| Harris, who is confined to his home by i'll
ness. The vote confirmation stood as
| follows:
Ayes-Gibson, Smith and Baker.
Noes-McMilan, Gallinser, Hansbrough.
Proctor, Pritchard, Wetmore Faulkner.
Martin and Bacon.
When the committee opened, it transact
ed small amount of minor business relat-
ing to measures before it, and then took up
the subject of Mr.. Sands confirmat ton
The subcommittee, consisting of Senators
Gallinger Proctor and Faulkner. made "a
unanimous report against confirmation. At
once discussion was precipitated which
was taken part in by nearly every member
or the committee present. Mr. Gallinger
produced copy of Senate document 13S of
the last session of Congress, which, he
said, alone contained sufficient reason to
cause the committee to make an adverse
report on Mr.. Sands nomination
Although this document was printed and
circulated as other documents have bean
every member Of the committee with the
exception OF members of the subcommittee
which had acted on Mr.. Sands nomination.
confessed their complete ignorance of Its
existence The document referred to is a
communication by Mr.. Sands as counsel
for the National Capital Gaslght Heat
ana Power Company of the District of
Columbia, and was presented in the Senate
February Is, 1896 by Mr.. Kyle Mr. Cal
llhSer read number of para graphs from
THIS document. The paper was written by
Mr.. Sands after he had failed to secure an
incorporation Tor his company.
Grounds for Rejection.
The portions of the document read by
Mr.. Gallinger as sufficient reason why the
members of the committee should reject
his nomination follow:
These objections are simpIv a subtar
fuGe.''
The above expression referred to the
commissioners adverse report on his bill
giving as the ground of their objection
that the incorporation of the company he
represented would result in the tearing
UP of the streets of the city. The follow
ing are other portions of Mr.. Sands paper:
Tnat such Intelligent men Com
missioners should make objection so
utterly unreasonable makes thinking per
sons form natural differences as to the
mysterious influences which control their
actions, SO evidently hostile to the best
interests of a suffering community"
rs Il not a notorious fact demonStra ed
by the evidence taken by the committee of
Congress in 1886 and 1892, and from the re-
ports of the committees based thereon that
with an actual individual outlay of cash ITS
stock of less than $lan,o'n the Stockholders
of the Washington Gasiight Company re-
ceived from the earnings of the company
S2.o~,oO of stock, the par value of each
share of which is 500 and it has a market
value of $50 per share and it's regular
dividends amount to from 10 to ~ per cent
per annum: the company, in addition 10
the payment of which large dividends, pays
frequently extra dividends and a very
heavy salary roll to its officers, and is daily
accommodating and adding to an enormous
surplus fund which it proposes to convert
into stock for distribution among Its stock
holders whenever Congress shall authorize
al increase of its capital stock
The Objectionable feature of the above
extract was the following conclusion, APP
Parently drawn by Mr. Sands:
1t is most strange that the Commission
ers of the District should have ignored that
fact, and their silence in regard thereto
tells its own story to the bill-paying citi-
Zers whom the Commissioners are willing
10 see go on paying into the Golfers of heir
favored company twice as much for bad
article as is asked of them for better
article by the new company"
Compliments to the Committee.
Mr.. Sands. after these remarks about the
Commissioners, pays his compliments to
the committee on the District of Columbia
in the following language. referring to their
adverse report on his bill:
1T starts out with tie frank admission
thtt Your committee was confronted with
strong public sentiment in the District In
faNcr of affirmative action on the part of
Congress. 1t contains on page nine an at
! tempt TO excuse the local company and
'Whitewash the record as to the bad quail
ity Of gas supplied aud concludes with an
expression of opinion that the gas company
could voluntarily soon reduce the price of
gas. and. therefore. they reported adversely
on the bill. Admittedly therefore that ac-
zion OF the Senate committee was hostile
10 the interests Of the people of the Dis
trict'
This declaration on the part of Mr. Sands
that the Senate committee was hostile to
tn" interests. of the people of the District
was regarded as pretty severe by all the
me mbers of the committed but the follow
ing sentence they looked upon as rejecting
upon their own integrity. Mr.. Sands, in
his paper, stated:
That report was worth thousands of
dollars to the gas company.
lie goes on to say: 1t is fair and rea-
sonable to assume and believe that their
action treferring to the committed upon
similar measures will be controlled by the
same motives that governed the last Con-
gress. when as between the public interest
and the so-called rights of invested capi-
tai they made the former subservient 10
| the latter, which they advocate throughout
every line of their report
Again. Mr.. Sands says: THE Commits
sioners of the District. in the interests of
| the local monopoly, submit as a second
reason for their adverse report an asser-
| tion that since Congress can control this
| local company as regards the price and
qu tlity of its gas to consumers no favor
| able action upon Senate bill 1i0S should be
taken.
Suppose, for the sake of argument that
the company permits its friends in Con-
| sress to consent to the passage of a bin re-
ducing the price of gas TO 81 for 900 cubic
| feet if paid promptly, and 81 % If the cash
| is not promptly paid. What is the advan-
| tage TO the people? Abundant proof was
presented to the committees showing that a
simple reduction of % cents did not diniin-
| ish the size of the bills rendered by the
| Washington Gaslight Company. They have
protested against even that reduction and
| there are senators who have agreed with
| them. and up to date they have prevented
| any such reduction"
+ Again Mr.. Sands makes this remark. "A
| mysterious influence makes them advocate
| strongly in favor of competing electric
| light company, with the necessary tearing
up of street surfaces for laying conduits
| and oppose granting the same privilege.
| when new gas company is proposed
| whose benefits will be more far-reachinu
| and for the benefit of greater number Of
| customers. 1t Is a mysterious influence.
| but whose source is well understood among
our citizens"
| Mr.. GallfnGer's Statement,
Mr.. Gallinger. after the reading of this