The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1908-11-01
WILL DEMAND FINE
FROM GAS TRUST
District Will Bring Suit
Against Monopoly on Bad
Quality Charge.
BELOW STANDARD
is ONE CLAIM
Corporation Counsel Thomas
Hopes TO Have Trial Begun by
the First of December.

I
they should sell gas OF inferior quality
through meters which the Districts Gas
and Meter Inspector says are fast,
will be given to the Washington Gas
Light Company and the Georgetown Gas
Light Company in a few weeks Cor
lporation Counsel Thomas said yesterday
that he viii endeavoT TO have the COM
panies tried in December.
The two companies are charged with
furnishing gas below the legal stand
ard, and the District seeks 20 recover
s. 900 from the Washington Gas Light
COMPANY and s., 600 from the George
town Company as penalties. The cases
VIII be tried in the District Supreme
Court.
The necessary investigations have
been completed, and l shall endeavor 10
have a trial on the charges against the
two gas companies brought up IN the
Supreme Court of the District in De
cember." Mr. Thomas said yesterday.
22-Candlepower Required.
Twenty-Five candlepoweT gas is re-
auired in the District under the act or
March g. 1885. The penalty provided
for violation Of any clause in the act is
500 for each day. It Is required, fur
thermore. that t3e gas furnished shall
not contain mere than twenty grains OF
sulphur nor more than I'VE grams OF
! ammonia in 100 cubic feet, and that 1t
shall be free from sulphureted hydrogen
Elmer f. Runyon. inspector OF gas
and meters, presents figures in his re
port for the year 19J5-19OS showing that
the offenses Of the gas companies were
even more frequent than they were in
1906-19O7 lie says in this report, re-
ferring to the Washington company:
ION sixty days the tests show the
candlepower to be below 22-candlepoWer
at one or more stations al some time
during the day.
ION thirty-nine days. the tests showed
the presence at one or more stations
of sulphureted hydrogen in the gas sup
piled by the company"
/ Referring 10 the Georgetown Gas
Light Company for the year 1905 the re-
port says;
"On hfty-two days the gas was below
the standard at some time during the
day. On most OF these days it varied
between twenty and twenty-five candle
power. On twenty-five days the gas
supplied by this company contained the
impurity, sulphureted hydrogen"
Bad on Twenty-nine Days.
For the year 19051sO7. according TO NIr
Runyon, the Washington Gas Light Com
psny violated the law on twenJy-niHe
days, and It is for those days that t6e
District is seeking IN court the infic-
ton OF the penalties. In that year Mt
Runyon's report says, the Washington
company furnished gas below the legal
standard on nineteen days. and on ten
days the gas contained sulphuTeted ny
drogen; hence the $3.50 in penalties de-
manded.
In his report on the Georgetown Gas
Light Company for 1916-19Jl Mr.. RuuyOB
charges that on sixteen days the can
dlep0wer fell below the legal standard,
that it contained more than the pre-
scribed amount OF ammonia on FIVE
days, ana on five days contains slore
than the stipulated twenty grains Of
sulphur per 90 cubic feet, making TWEEN
ty-siX days or $780, in all.
4 year Laser. according to Mr. Run
yon, the offeuses. Of the washington
company were committed on niaety-nine
days, or seventy more days than ia
1906-l9O7. The penalty, If the company
were convicted, would be $500
The Georgetown company offended
on seventy-four days in l907-lS06, or for
ty-eight more than during the proceed
ing year. The penalty On conviction
would be $7,400.
Companies Did Not Pay.
The prosecutions undertaken by the
District Commissioners resulted from
Mr.. Runyon's report for the fiscal year
19O6-1gO7. The penalties for the offenses
alleged to have been committed during
that time were imposed by the Com
missiOners, but the companies refused
to pay them.
AS for the meters, more han Il per
cent of those owned by the v 2shington
Gas Light Company and inspected on
complaint of consumers, were found 10
be fast" according to the report. In
this connection. MI Runyon reported:
"Of the l,2J5 meters inspected on the
complaint of consumers, go, or H.50
per cent were fast and 5L62 per cent
were correct.
Fifty meters were inspected on com
plant of consumers in Georgetown. OF
which twenty-five. or A per cent were
slow, and 81 per cent were correct.
The defense instituted by the Wash
ingtou Gas Light Company and the
Georgetown Gas Light Company is
practically the same Ia each case.
Gives its Defense
The companies irst make "a general
denial OF the charges. and then go on 60
assert that. in any event, they come
within the prOvisO OF the statute which
exempts the gas companies from the
payment of penalty if the deviation
from the standards Eamed could not
have been avoided by ordinary care and
prudence, but was o-sasioned by some
unavoidable cause
| The companies assert, further, that
There is no method by which the falling
OF the gas below the twenty-five candle
power once in while such as is
charged against them, can bc prevented
This assertion is supported by affi-
: / daVits.
voted his personal attention to the
preparation of the suits against the gas
d / companies, and in his annual report ht
. declares the cases TO be the most impor-
d ! tant business with which his office has
e had TO deal during the past year.