The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-08-15
Paf1a7exsakxfsxse a.5e a.5 ie as < 's17se st'xef' LETTERS TO
 THE EDITOR.
REPLN TO MIR. vANDIvER.
Consumer" Discusses Figures and
 Facts With Him.

| consumer" discusses IiSoAeS oAN-
 Facts With Him.
 Editor The Advertiser:
 l do not intend either to involVe or to distoft the issue, else much inisht be said in reply to the President or tne new school of philanthropy, the Mont gomery Light and Power company Neither do 1 desire that further lnJus- tice be visited upon the City Councli and the Light Company. Better far that the interests of the people De su- | bordinate6-evcn for nifty years-than Il that these weak, defenseless entltles De ''misrepresenteo."
 But l feel called upon to Vlndlcate my position, particularly since the stdtis- tics contained in my article seem 10 De at such utter variance with those gwen by the PI esident of the new school ol philanthropy and statistics.
 As to Nashville, the Chle1 fnlldn- thropist and Statistician admits that my figures are correct, save as to the statement concerning coal, Whlch ne IS unable to confirm or to deny. And | here it may be remarked, that 1t Is | matter of public interest what coal costs here and elsewhere, since the cost of gas must vary with the price or coal My figures concerning Richmond. Va. are admitted to be true.
 Likewise are my Norfolk (Va) ng- ures, though, forsooth, l omitted to state that 1t was an Atlantic port where gas is made of very crude oil. Evidently, then, the cost Of materlai enters very largely into the price or gas, though MT. Vandiver did previ- ously remark that the public was not int crested in the price of coal here or elsewhere.
 Thus far there is positively not va riance between my figures and those or the Chief Statistician. Concerning Memphis, he is kind enough to credit me with part of the truth ut Is an axiom, believe, that part IS greater than none). An analysis, however will demonstrate that my statement IS entirely true; for in reference to Mem. phis I made no statement as to 1uei gas.
 As to the other cities, Dallas, Macon, Savannah and Columbia, the figures published by me were those recently received from the heads of the depart ments of those respective cities. II they be incorrect. the misrepresentation must be attributed to the writers or the letters and to no inclination on the part of "Consumer" wilfully to mis- state.
 MT. Vandiver admits that the situ- ation in other cities is no doubt pracu cally the same as in Montgomery; that is. the gas pipes are not extended all over the entire corporate limts.' If this statement be true, how does 1t compare with the formidable array of figures which he presents and which he states he assembled "in consoll- dated form. in order that the pubic ~ fs may form an intelligent conclu- sion from a business standpoint? Ac- cofdtng lto3Mf. Vandiver's figures, the population hins Nashville supplied with gas fs 130, ,00os while in Montgomery II is 25, 900. According to the recent cen- sus of the United States Government, the census of Nashville was S0,S65 and that of Montgomery was 30,346. Tax ing MT. Vandiver's statement that the situation in other cities is no doubt practically the same as in Montgom- cry" why do his statistics give Nash ville's gas-supplied population nearly 50, GOO more than it's census, while Mont gomery's gas-supplied population is placed at 5000 less than the actual pop ulation by the census? Likewise, with Richmond According to MT. Vandi- ver's figures, the population of Rich mond supplied with gas is 95,000, while the Government census only gives It S5, ,050. So, too, with Memphis and Co lumbia does Mir. Vandver make 1t ap- pear that the gas-supplied population is largely in excess of its actual popu- lation. Yet in Montgomery, the place in which he is most interested. place where according to his own statement the same situation exists, he places the gas-supplied population 5000 less than the population actually given it by cen sus, I have not examined the other fHcts' stated, in his combination" but N1a azA 1.s- Sxf,, l,x@ AlA other statements contained are not nearer correct than the ones I have re- ferred to, then the natural conclusion is that he is shooting wide of the mark
 Again according to MT. Vaudiver's cWn statement and wonderful combi- nation of figures, Montgomery, at the rate If $l.62 per NJ for illuminating gas and $l0S for fuel gas averages CT mecer per annun $27.46. Richmond with fuel and Illuminating gas each selling at one dollar the annual meter cost is $36.12. Nashville with fuel and Illuminating gas at one dollar, the average meter cost is $2I.50. Does Mir. Vandiver Intend to convey the idea thereby tha' the cheaper the rate per thousand. the higher the cost to the COT sumer?
 
 not only philanthropist and statistician but he is also prophet. For he ex- presses that it is his candid opinion that within the next five years the demand for Illuminating gas will prac- tically be nothing" If this Belamy- istic prediction is to be realized. since no good will inure to the light company for furnishing illuminating gas after five years, let the charter be amended to cover that period. The gas com pany can lose nothing" and the citi- zens may gain much.
 In conclusion I have written this, not with view to controversy hut for the purpose of eliciting an explana- tion of figures which are so combined as to mean anything. If I have mis- stated it is purely unintentional and simply from my experience with the recognized code of philanthropy of the Montgomery I,iglStH 2and7 Power