The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-09-04
NO CHEAP GAS.
Special Master Brock Decides
for Company.
Holds That Contention of City
Is Wrong.
WINS IN EVERY POINT.
Report Gives the City Nothing
to Stand On.
Finds Cost of Manufacture to
Be 80 Cents.
Formal Report Filed Today
With JudOe HOOk.
WINS IN EVERY POINT.
Formal Report Filed Today
With Judge Hook.

Brock has decided that all the evidence
in the dollar gas case is against the
city II this report is sustained by
Judge w c. Hook, as it is almost GER
tain to be, it means that the dollar gas
ordinance is invalid, and the present
rates charged by the Exec elsior Coke &
Gas company are probably as low as
can be expected.
Every essential point at issue be-
tween the city and the gas company is
decided by Mr.. Brock in favor of TIE
company. He seems to have taken the
gas company's evidence with very little
modification and embodied it in his re
port He finds that the actual cost of
making gas in Topeka is about 90 cents
a thousand, instead of from so to so
cents as was contended by the city.
The special master holds thar the
present owners have invested in the
plant the sum of $3.50. 900, and he allows
them to charge up interest at per cent
on this sum in figuring the cost Of gas
manufacture. He finds, however, that
the present value of the plant and
main complete is S16O.0OO.
Copies of the special masters find
ings were received this morning by At
torney Charles Blood Smith, represent
Mcfarland, representing the city. They
were sent by mail from Mr.. Brooks
home at Manhattan. Each of the at
tOrneys will now inspect the nnd1ngs,
and then file with the special master
any exceptions which they may desire
to make to the findings. These eXcep-
tions will be filed with the findings and
evidence with Judge Hook, before whom
the final arguments in the case VIII
take place
r1.a 10 -Q-
the case in considerable detail, giving
q history of how the evidence was ta-
ken. a full description of the complain
ant company's incorporation, and of
the nature of the dollar gas ordinance
There are 13 typewriter pages IN the
report, and it concludes with the fol-
lowing summary:
"Complainants' plant is modern and
we'll adapted for the economical manu-
facture and distribution of coal gas.
The fair market value of COMPLAIN
ants plant at the close OF the taxing
of evidence was s16O0O0, exclusive of
any value its license from the CITY OF
Topeka may have.
1T is economically operated.
The material and necessary labor
required for its operation are procured
at the lowest cash market prices.
"A normal rate of interest on the cap
ital invested and depreciation to its
manufacturing plant and distributing
system. are proper charges to be taken
cost of the manufacture and distribu-
tion of gas.
Repairs required to maintain the
working efficiency of gas plant are
an additional expense to be considered
in arriving at the cost of gas at the
place of consumption.
"Complainants' license ordinance con-
tains no limitations to the price at
which it shall furnish gas to consumers,
nor is there so far as the record dis
closes any ordinance or contract be-
tween complainant and defendant
which contains any such regulations.
Under the present known methods.
the cost to complainant of manufactur-
ing and distributing coal gas in the
city of Topeka is in excess of the sum
of one dollar per thousand cubic feet,
the maximum rate fixed by the ordi-
nance adopted by defendant, which said
ordinance is now claimed by defendant
to be a valid law of the city of To-
pe.sa.'
COST OF MAKING GAS.
The vital point of the whole suit is
of course the cost of making gas in
Topeka If il could be shown that gas
can be made al such Il price that 81
per thousand allows a reasonable net
profit. the dollar rate would stand. But
on this point the report is unmistak-
able. 1t sets aside the great mass of
evidence given for the city by such
experts as Bemis of Ohio and johnson
of Lawrence. and holds that the cost
as claimed by the gas company is cor
rect. The report saws:
In a plant such complainant has
and with coal such as complainant uses
a ton of gas csal carbonized yields
about 5000 cubic feet of gas. The resi-
du9ls produced per ton of coal carboniz-
ed reduced the cost of gas to compain-
ant by about 1-5.
The gas manufactured by complain
ant from January /. 1900. to January 1.
1901 as shown by the evidence cost the
complainant per thousand cubic feet
S1.lS 98-10O. After deducting from the
cost of production the market value of
all residuals obtained from the coal car
bonized, the net cost of complainant was
1896 cents
This cost was upon the basis of an
output of about 35 million cubic feet of
gas Der year. The cost of gas manu-
factured by complainant from January
]. 1901. to June 80, 1901. as shown by the
evidence. cost the complainant per thou
and cubic feet $1.19 96-100. After de-
ducting from the cost of production the
market value of all residuals obtained
from the coal carbonized the net cost
To complainant was 80 24-100 cents per
thousand cubic feet. This cost was upon
the basis of an output OF a little over
1l@ million cubic feet for such period
of time.
The evidence shows that for the six
years prior to January !. 1900. the av-
erage net cost for the productions of
gas by complainant in the city of To-
peka was practically the same as the
amount herein found"
LARGE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRE-
CITATION.
One Of the points of Importance in de-
termining the cost of making gas is
whether or not the depreciation of the
plant should be figured in as part of the
cost of manufacture. The report gives