The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-22

Send for trial bottle free.
SCOTT 6 BOVINE, io9 Pearl street, New York
the net earnings could be found. The pro-
vision concerning capitalization follows;
That the total amount of the stock of
said company herein authorized to be is
sued shall not exceed its actual value, to
be ascertained by its board of directors by
capitalization upon per centum basis
of the average net earnings of the COM
pany for three years next preceding the is
sue or issues OF said stock, the said capt.
taliZation by said board of directors 20
be made under the supervision and ap-
proval of the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia upon petition therefor
by said company under such regulations
as the chief justice and the justices there
of shall prescribe
Mr. Pearre in replying to Mr.. Smith
called attention TO the report of the Com
missiOners upon the section Of the bill
in controversy. On this point the Com
missicners said:
THE Commissioners would state that
in a corporation occupying such relations
TO the public as the companies furnish
ing lights for the public streets their
management becomes to a certain extent
q matter of public concern, and as an ex-
cessive issue of stock Is apt to result in
poor management, the Commissioners be-
lieve that the issue should be so safe
guarded that the strength of the COM
pany will be maintained.
Section 5 of the act of June 6, 1896,
authorizes the gas companies to issue
stock and bonds under the supervision
of the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia 1t is believed that this method
is sufficient for the purpose and better
safeguards the issue OF stock then the
method prescribed in the proposed act.
The Commissioners would. therefore,
recommend that the act require the is
sue of stock TO be made in accordance
with the terms of said act of June 6,
1896"
Mr.. Gaines Query.
Mr.. Gaines interrupted to ask, why DO
you want to consolidate all these illum-
mating companies? Why do you want
to get up another monopoly"
Mr.. Pearre said it was in the interest
of users of light.
Mr.. Gaines then asked who is back of
this bill?'
Mr. Pearre said that directors of the
gas company had appeared before the
committee 10 ask for the legislation. He
had heard Of no clamor from the out
side in it's behalf
Mr. Hopkins asked what protection was
provided in the bill for minority stock
holders in the companies the stock of
which the Washington Gaslight Company
is authorized to buy.
Mr.. Pearre did not know what protec-
ton could be given to these stockholders.
He said that majority of the stock of
the Georgetown Gaslight Company is
pany.
In reply TO Mr. Robinson, Mr.. Pearre
said the Committee on the District of Co
lumbia was advised that no project for
the consolidation of the gas and electric
companies of the District of Columbia is
in immediate contemplation. He said
that if the House feared TO authorize the
combination of the gas and electric light
companies the committee would not OBJ
ject TO striking out that provision and
providing for the consolidation alone of
the two gas companies.
Mr.. Pearre, in view of the great oppo-
sition to the bill, asked unanimous con-
sent that 1t be laid aside
Mr.. Moody of Massachusetts. Mr. Hop
kins, and Mr.. Grosvenor objected. Both
Mr.. Hopkins and Mr.. Grosyenor wanted
the bill recommitted to the Committee on
the District of Columbia. 1t appeared to
be Mr.. Moody's desire to squarely defeat
the bill
Mr.. Babcoek threw himself into the
breach and said no bill had ever come be-
fore the House which was so thoroughly
misunderstood. He said no citizen had
appeared before the committee to oppose
the pending measure.
Mr.. Hepburn said that no bill had ever
come before Congress TO enlarge the privi-
leges Of the gas companies of the District
which had not aroused the opposition Of
the people of this city IT, therefore, the
people did not oppose the pending bill. it
was because they did not know much
about Ii.
The gentleman from Iowa said that
every dollar of betterments and increases
enjoyed by this company had been secured
out of the earnings of the company. 1t
might be that there was no objection to
the bill on the part of the citizens and
that they were content with it, but he was
in doubt of this.
Mr.. Moody interjected by saying that
the District Commissioners we're averse
to the stock jobbing" proposed in the
bill.
Mr.. Pearre having yielded the floor and
Mr.. Babcock's time having expired Mr.
Sims was recognized. whercupon the gem
tleman from Wisconsin asked the gentle
man from Tennessee to give MIN two min
utes Of his time. Mr.. Sims assented and
Mr.. Babcock said in view of the general
misunderstanding he would move that the
bill be recommitted.
The Chair asked Mr. Sims IL he would
yield to Mr.. Babcock for the purpose of
making a motion and the Tennessee mem
Der, though manifestly about to make the
same motion, said suavely, Certainly"
Before the motion was put Mr.. Grout
sent up an amendment that the recommit-
tai be with instruction to report bill
reducing the price of gas for four con-
secutive years. Mr.. Babcock at first
raised the point that the amendment was
too late. This did not hold and sir. Bah
cock raised a point OF order against the
amendment that 1t was not germane, but
the Chair overruled the point and the
bill was recommitted with instructions.
The Providence Hospital Bill.
Mr. Mudd called up the bill introduced
by him on January 5. TO enable the d.
rectors OF Providence Hospital TO increase
the accommodations of that institution,
and It was passed. The bill provides:
That the directors of Providence Hospital
are hereby authorized to erect additional
buildings and make such inn roYemenis for
hospital purposes as they may deem
proper on square 1854, city Of Washington.
District of Columbia, now owned and oc-