Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1902-04-11
Concerning the Com
mittees' Reports.

PUBIC attention 10 t0o main iehIufos
Of the reports OF the Finance and
Light Committees, 10 which compdrt.
son Is instituted between the terms OF
our offer and results said to have been
obtained by the city.
10 the comparison sdoE tsd 10 the
reports no account Ia taken OF the in
terest which the city will have 10 pay
for the money to be borrowed for a re-
newsl of its gas and electric works, Der
of the saving to gas consumers from a
reduction 10 the price OF gas; no allow
auce is made for depreciation (not
even for the amount which the hard
fact OF necessary renewal OF both gas
aud electric manufacturing plants estsb-
fishes beyond controversy; no allow
ance is made for the fact tnst the cost
OF operating the the electric plant 10
now, and will continue ID be, whether
under City or Syndicate management,
5000 year more expensive than 10
1898, 1899, 1900 aud 1901, on account
of the permanent loss OF annual
receipts from the private use OF six arc
lamps heretofore burnt by the South
ern Railway Company; no account. is
taken OF the $25, 900 which the city will
receive fthe city elects TO continue the
operating contract for the full term
in. sad of bringing 1t to termination
st the end OF ten years; and no account
is taken OF the prospective receipts to
the city from O sale OF electricity to
private consumers.
A correction of the third schedule
met prof,S) in the report OF the Com
mitlee on Light 10 respect alone to the
item OF interest on the necessary S32,
900 renewals will show that our propo-
stion IL s881.52 per aunum more favor
able to tax payers than the average
results of four years last pstt which
have been adopted by the committees
as fair basis of comparison. II the
city rebuilds the plants it will beyond
question have to pay this interest. Ii
we take over the management OF the
plants we agree to pay the interest so
long as we have the use Of them. The
saving Of these interest payments Ia
lust as direct pecuniary benefit to the
City Treasury rs the 10 cents per ,O0C
lett which we agreed to pay.
A correction of schedule third (net
profts) In the report of the COMMITTEES
on Light in the first four respects only
mentioned above would make them
read as follows for the purpose OF fall
comparison with our offer:
NET PROFITS.
Third schedule.
Starting With surplus net
earnings during 189S-1899.1900,
| 1901 at end of this schedule, Sl,593.9:
Yearly average surplus net
earnings, being one-fourth OF
81, 593 "a, 1898 Al
Deduct interest at per
cent. on $4,000 for gas and
| $12. 900 for electric works, 81 ,28O.O(
Deduct saving to gas con-
sumers OF 20 cents per 1000
cubic feet 90 20,196. 500 cubic
fet t OF gas burrt 10 1901 by re-
cubic feet. 4,OSs.S!
Deduct average annual de-
preci'tion propoitloned only
to necessary renewals OF both
plants to the extent of $32.-
600, 1855
Deduct. Annual increased
cost Of operating electric plant
on account OF loss of revenue
on railroads 6 arc lamps 800 g
81, $3.50
Total annual net difference
in our favor. S7,1S7.5
10 this letter neither time nor to
opportunity OF q thorough examination
OF the voluminous reports permits US T.
make a detailed criticism OF them; be
In order to an understanding OF soned
ules second and third, we must dra'
attention to the fact that the item o
| 81. 760.46 at TIE end Of schedule secon,
and of 81 ,593.94 at the end of schednt
| third each cover q period of four years
| 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901. Furthermore
that these items are not Independent
| iteme, but that the laitsr Is included
| within the former. And hence that thu
members OF TIE committee who WOW
together the figures furnished by thu
city's accountants erred. no doubt no
iDt sntionally, to the extent OF 81. 1893. "a
when they stated:
land 10 addition transferred to
general fund 81, 760.46 and still
had an excess of 1 1894" The
effect OF this misleading geDer-
sl statement Is representa-
ton that the alleged surplus
net earnings are double what
the figures following the state
mel substantiate. They should
have stated $1,,760.46 Of which
sum our figures following show
that $1.593.94 has been earned
and $166.52 unearned.
The amount OF free gas offered b!
the operators e, 200 600 feet is IN roun.
| numbers the same as that used by thI
CITY in 1901, and is much more thar
| the average per annum consumption
during the four years which the com
90 tt 20 has selected ss In their opinion
A fair basis of comparisoD. The amount
Of gas consumed by the city is given IL
he annual published statements OF the
CITY as 10 1901, 3,2l3, 100 cubic feet; Ia
1900, 2603,70O cubic feet; IN 1899
2,3l2,5OO cubic feet; in 1898, 2 800, zoe
| cubic feet. The average during the fou'
years is 2, $50, 900 cubic feet per annun, o,
10000 cubic feet per Gnhum less than
the amount Of gas Uhich toe haze offered
to furnish free of charge.
The criticism that the offer OF oui
syndicsts did not offset the advantages
which have accrued to the city during
the past four years In respect to free
gas would therefore seem to be M.
founded to the extent of the city'i
valuation OF $4,000 cubic feet OF gss
which would be- 1868 80. This
valuation put by the committee or
| auaru lQlQ cnhin faat mad hn Iha elf =