Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-01-23
The GAS COMPANYS BILL
EXPRESSIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
THE ACTION Of THE HOUSE.
Distrust of the StOck-Increasing and
Consolidation Provisions of
the Pending Measure.
To the Editor of The Evening Star:

To the Editor of The Evening Star:
You certainly deserve the thanks of the
citizens of the District for the stand you
have taken in regard to the bill allowing
the gas company to swallow the electric
light companies. 1t seems strange to me
that citizens and business men do not open
their eyes and see the great evil that would
result from the passage of such bill, and
the monopoly that would result therefrom.
If this bill should pass, they would then
raise a howl and ciamor which would be
too late. 1t is very remarkable that the
port of the Commissioners, who represent
the citizens of the city, should have been
entirely ignored, and the statement by the
chairman of the District committee that
there was no opposition; that is certainly
very remarkable conduct on the part of
the committee, to say the least. You have
taken the stand that represents the best in
terests of the city and you deserve our
thanks. LONGW ORIH.
To the Editor of The Evening STAR
Long before the bill granting the Wash
ington Gaslight Company the power to buy
out the two electric companies was offered
some the inside began buying and
has bought thousands of shares of stock
This certainly was in anticipation of large
profits as result of this bill becoming
law. 1t would be well for Congress to look
into this and see who was acquiring all this
stock and spending all this money for the
public good Let it also examine the
company's set of books, and find out
what surplus it has. and let that go toward
increasing the plant. G. w. T.
To the Editor of The Evening Star:
Your editorial on the gas company bill
is all right Is there a provision in the
Washington bill requiring the company to
make a yearly report to Congress in detail
of it's receipts and expenditures, assets and
liabilities? If not, should there be one? The
street car companies are obliged to report.
WILLIAM JOHN.
To the Editor of The Evening Star:
The members of the House deserve the
thanks of the citizens of this city for the
manner in which they opposed the bill
granting the Washington Gaslight Com
pany the right to buy out the two electric
light companies and the power to Increase
it's stock. Before this bill was ever pre-
scented some of those on the inside began
buying heavily of this stock in anticipation
of a big profit which this bill would give to
the directors and large holders of its stock
All this stock was bought for those who
were already large holders, and, OF course,
the public good was the ostensible reason
for passing this bill. This company has a
large surplus, and if 1t really wants to in
crease its plant let it use that, and then
issue bonds, not a free distribution of
stock. The Commissioners disapproved the
section of the bill allowing purchase of the
electric companies. The District committee
ignored the Commissioners recommends
ton, and then said no one opposes it. All
citizens and business men oppose it, and we
thank those members who have so easily
seen the real object Of the BILL and earnest
ly beg that they will continue to watch and
oppose it. CITIZEN.
To the Editor of The Evening Star:
Why does the gas company want the
power to consolidate with other lighting
companies in this District?
1. Is 1t for the purpose of consolidating
with the Georgetown Gas Company? But
the latter company is allowed to charge the
consumer 81. % per 900 feet If CONSOLE
dated with the Washington Gas Company
this charge must be reduced to 81. But 1t
was stated on the floor of the House that
the Washington Gas Company owned the
controlling interest in the Georgetown Gas
Company. If this Is the purpose of the bill,
the gas company should receive due credit
for wishing voluntarily to reduce the price
of gas to the consumer even at the expense
of the stockholders.
2 Is it for the purpose of consolidating
with the existing electric lighting compa-
MES? But this would create a monopoly.
Moreover, it was stated on the floor of the
House that there were no negotiations
pending for the purchase Of the electric light
ing plants But if this is the real purpose
of the bill why the necessity of permission
The existing electric companies have all the
cOnduitS they need.
3. Is 1t for the purpose Of consolidating
with some newly formed electric light
Ing company? This Is meritorious. We
will have competition In rates for
electric lighting service. We are will
Ing to have all the streets torn up
again for SO laudable a purpose, espe-
cially as competition will inevitably result
in consolidation and monopoly as was the
case with the Potomac and United States
Electric Lighting Companies.
4. Is the clause permitting an increase of
capital stock for the purpose of lettering
the plant and improving the service to
the consumer? But why invite congress
sional inquiry into the net earnings when
by application to the Supreme Court of
the District under section Of the act Of
1896?
s. Would increase in capitalization to
eight or ten millions benefit the consumer?
1t would increase the value of the stock.
In anticipation of such increase the stock
has risen eleven points on the local stock
exchange PR xa1ne s9o Sold two
If present capitalization is $26OOOOO, net
earnings upon which will equal Gas con-
servatively stated on the floor of the
House) $SOOOOOO upon a four per cent
ings of the company at the present price
Of gas? Is 1t not the declared policy Of
Congress to limit the price of gas to a
point where fair return to the company
upon its invested capital may be secured?
But If the capitalization be increased 10
IS, 100000 (conservatively stated, can Con-
gress then reduce the price of gas to the
consumer? But the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia in the recent tele-
phone case held to be unconstitutional an
act attempting to reduce rates below the
point where the net earnings constituted a
fair return upon the outstanding capital
stock. Is not four per cent upon CAPT.
talization of 100000 (conservatively stat
ed) merely a fair return upon such out
standing capital stock? Upon the present
capitalization Of $2,6OO,OOO are dividends
aggregating in the last two years $7S0,OO
a fair return? In addition to these divi-
dends, does anybody know what the sur
plus earnings invested in real estate and
otherwise amount to? Is the surplus more