Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1899-07-08
LARGEST
WEEKLY CIRCULATION
IN CHICAGO.
! ALDERMANiC STULTiFiCATION.

How can the City Council stultify It.
self In view Of the following report
from the City Hall committee on the
question Of the cty's confessing judy
ment In favor Of Bumps" Billings
Gas Trust?
To the Honorable City Council Of the
City Of Chicago:
which had been referred a certain reso-
luton directing the Corporation Coun.
sci to permit no judgments by default
to be entered against the city, together
with communication from the Cor.
poration Counsel In explanation Of his
action In such cases, respectfully sub.
mits that II has made Investigations,
especially into the following judgments
obtained against the city by the Peo'
pies Gas Light and Coke Company. to
wit: A judgment entered In the Cir.
cult Court Sept. 2, 1893. for $50, 4O5.0l;
one entered In the Superior Court Nov.
IS, 1905, for $112.O77.4O, and one en-
tered in the Superior Court March 0,
1900, for $38,s51.48. We find that In
commenced suit and filed an affidavit
Of claim. and that the Corporation
Counsel fled plea admitting that the
amount stated In the affidavit OF claim
was due and owing to the company. II
the Corporation Counsel was satisfied
that there was no defense he should
not have wasted the city's money (S3 In
each case) by entering appearance and
paying docket fees.
We ind that these claims SO turned
into judgments were for gas furnished
for public lamps, and for lighting,
cleaning and extinguIshing the same.
In the appropriation bill for 1893 $780,
600 was appropriated for gas and for
cleaning, lighting and repairing lamps,
as we'll as for arc lights and other mat
tiers connected with the lighting Of the
streets and bridges. About 100000
OF this was paid to the Peoples Gas
Light and Coke. Company, and the bal.
ance for electric lighting. etc. The gas
company rendered bills monthly on the
basis Of $50 per lamp per annum for
the gas consumed by the lamp, and for
lighting, cleaning and extinguishing,
It's bills aggregating during the year
1895 s61s,247.8s.
We find that there was no express
contract between the gas company and
the city for the year 1895, but their
bills We're rendered according to the
terms Of a contract which was made on
or about July 10, 1892, not now In force.
That old contract required the city to
pay $50 per lamp per annum. Under
an ordinance passed March II, 1887,
the estimate for lighting, cleaning and
extinguishing each was IL cents per
night, that is, $5.47ia per annum, which
would leave Sl452ia as the value of the
gas consumed by each lamp per annum.
The same ordinance estimates the total
number Of hours In which "A lamp
would be burning in year as 1855
hours and - minutes, and, as We I'M
derstand, these lamps are supposed to
burn four cubic feet per hour, lamp
would burn 13, 436 cubic feet in year,
which would make a rate per thousand
cubic feet, claimed by the gas com
pany In its bills, of about S1.0S. II
there was no contract between the gas
company and the city fixing the rate 10
he paid for gas, then the city should
pay no more than the gas was reason
ably worth, and II seems To this com
mit,ee that il was the plain duty of the
Corporation Counsel to compel the com
pany To prove what the gas was worth,
and allow II TO recover payment for no
more than was so proven.
Your committee would also submit
that the Corporation Counsel could
have interposed another defense, name
~, that the city had already exceeded
It's constitutional limit OF indebtedness,