The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-05-28
WEAVER IS
 THE VICTOR He Defeats the Gas Grab in Philadelphia. MAYORS GREAT CONTEST Republican Organization"
 SurrenderS. Forced to Step by Public Opposition the Alleged Ring Ceases Effort to Extend the Now Fam
 Ous Lease.

Philadelphia, May 27.--After a con- test lasting five days, the Republi- can "organization.' led by Insurance Commissioner Isreal Durham. was forced today by public opposition and clamor to abandon it's efforts to ex- tend the lease of the city gas works to the United Gas Improvement Com pany for seventyfve years.
 Thomas Dolan, president of the company, today forwarded a formal letter to the presidents of the select and common branches of the city councils withdrawing his proposition to advance the city $25. .000. 900 in consid- eration of the extension of the lease which the company now holds.
 The withdrawal of the United Gas company's offer is undoubtedly sig nal victory for Mayor Weaver in his fight with the organization" though 1t does not mean the end of the bat tie. The injunction proceedings brought by David Symtn. former d. rector of public safety. and Peter E. Costello. former director of public works. against Mayor Weaver and their successors. Col. Sheldon PottoT and A. Lincoln Acker. to restrain the mayors appointees from conducting the affairs of the two departments is still to come up for argument and the leaders will make determined effort to have the temporary injunc- ton made permanent The temporary injunction issued by the common pleas court was rendered imperative by write of supersedeas procured by the mayors counsel from the supreme court. Chief Justice Mitchell of the higher court. however, sent the case l back to the lower court for argument and the supersedeas is in effect only until the question of the injunction hwy haf trih Pressure on COuncilmen. Since last Tuesday when the mayor caused the first sensation by busting Directors Smyth and Costello and ap- pointing their successors. great pres sure has been brought to bear upon the councilmen by both sides and the | reorganization" leaders have steadily maintained confidence in their ability to have the gas lease passed over the mayors veto. Popular opposition be- came pronounced. however, that one by one members of councils who origi- nally voted for the lease began to show a disposition to accede to the wishes of their constituents.
 It became evident that the leaders were losing control of councils but they were saved from putting their strength to the direct test when the United Gas Improvement Company withdrew its bid.
 MT. Dolan's letter to councils states that the notifications to the original lease bill reducing the price of gas were not in accord with the offer of the company but that they would have heen accepted Owing to the opposi- tton on the part of the people. MT Dolan's letter stated, the company was unwilling to enter into any contract with the city looking to any varia- ton of its present lease. The mayor has agreed to the withdrawal The letter was as follows:
 70 May IS, 1905. councils passed an ordinance extending by fifty-three gas works to the United Improvement Gas Company, which fixes the price of gas at S1 for five years, ninety-five cents for ten years, ninety cents for fifteen years, eighty-f1ve cents for twenty years and eighty cents there atfer. and provided for the payment to the city of Philadelphia of an ad- vance without interest for sum of s25, ,o0O. .000.
 Though this ordinance was not in full accord with the letter of this company of the 2sth of April. 1905, addressed to the chairman of the sub committee of the finance committee, the notifications would have been ao- cepted by this company.
 
 ness one In the opinion of this com pany 1t was one the city could and should accept Amongst the reasons in support of 1t were the following:
 According to the reports filed with the city controller each year and audi ted by his department the amounts expended by the United Gas Improve ment Company in additions, exten- sions. improvements, etc. under the lease have averaged $l.49S,e0o per annum.
 +rre will be $S0O,O0O per annum, the total for the period of the whole term eStended wolld be $60.000.000 plus the
 anoount now due this company of $14.-
 SsS,sSl.4s, making a total of STA,
 SS14s." .. ,,..
 hs n gaIner by any decrease in the cost | of production of gas. on the other hand
 |. would be relieved of all risk in ad-
 ,,ancs of price of materials entering info the manufacture of gas. which are tncreasinE in cost and of all other risks incident to the gas business. IL
 would also be relieved of the present necessity of borrowing money for the