Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1905-02-15

Mr.. Strauss said that there was law
enough but the City Engineer did not
enforce the law
Mr.. Uhler declared that it was the
duty Of the policemen to see that the
railway did not obstruct the streets.
''They go along" be said. with their
heads up like turkeys out of basket
and don't see anything bat what they
wish to see. The police do not dis
charge their duty"
Mr.. Strauss repeated that it was the
duty of the City Engineer to see that
the snow was reno we'd.
Mr.. Spinks defended the police.
Mr.. Williams moved that the attention
of the City Engineer be called to the
matter.
Mr.. Bryan moved TO join the Mayor
with the City Engineer, which was
accepted. The motion was agreed to.
The question of the passage OF the
ordinance to transfer the electric light
plant and franchise to Mr.. G. F. Thomp-
son and his associates was called up.
Messrs. Bryan, Lesdbeater and Burke
advocated the passage of the ordinances
reviewing, the whole case to show that
the sale of the franchise would not
diminish the receipts of the gas work,
and would save money to the city.
Mr.. Bryan read statistics TO show that
the introduction of electricity does not
decrease the consumption of gas, but,
on the contrary, results in an increase
in the use of gas. He further quoted
figures and argued to the effect that the
present electric plant is practically
worn out. the city hasn't the money to
renew it, and the city, as well as the
public. would benefit by the sale of the
franchise.
Mess-s. Strauss, Spinks and Williams
opposed the ordinance and contended
that the new electric plant would be a
competitor of the gas works.
Mr.. Bryan said that he had heard two
remarkable arguments from the opposl-
ton, one that the purchasers of the
franchise would make the price of
electricity so high that the people could
not use il, and the other, that it would
be made so low that it would make the
city's gas plant Improbable.
Mr.. Uhler handed up an amendment,
but the chair said that the ordinance
was hey ond the stage of amendment.
Mr.. Uhler explained his position
saving he would vote for the ordinance.
The vote was then taken and stood
ayes 9, az being necessary, nays 5.
Messrs. Strauss. Harrison, Spinks and
Williams. Mr.. Bryan, also, voted nay, in
order to move q liberation, which
he did.
Mr.. Snowden, calling Mr.. Uhler to
the chair, recalled the circumstances
which attended the original investment
ofthe city in the electric light. He said
that at that time an offer was made by a
company to put UP plant and light the
city for s., 100 year 1.-The price then
paid for gas lighting. This proposition
had been turned down as some had as
sured the city that big revenue would
be derived from the sale OF electricity, hut
the promises had never materialized and
the cost of lighting the city had increased
to about 81, 900. He felt confident that if
A private company did not erect an cleo
trie plant the city would not, and the
citizens would thus be deprived of the
convenience OF electric lights, power &c.
He said the city's gas plant would not
be affected by a company owning an
electric plant; the city would receive
So, for the franchise and have
fixed charge for lighting the streets at a
cost less than was now paid.
Mr. Spinks again held that the gas
plant would be made valueless; said it
was now paying good interest on
$3.50, 900 and that few years ago the
plant was practically valueless.
This was strongly controverted
The motion to reconsider was then
carried, ayes 10, nays 4, and the subject
was laid over by the same vote.
Mr. Spinks vigorously protested
against any reconsideration, contending
that the vote he'd killed the ordinance.
The chair ruled that there was uoth-
ing before Council and, on motion, the
4