The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1909-01-30

TIC NAEfeeA-A-- "a A-4L LrAlA-AisE0tNA HEA-+A
certainly smile II he die not do no more.
Mr.. Fayior-I do not think We are in
terested IN that matter at all.
SIR Barker-That was the implication
in the report. and that is why I speak
CT Il.
1fr- Slms-These hearings have not been
submitted to any Of the speakers for
correction, and It is the first print
There are errors in the hearings. no
doubt, that would have been corrected
had they had opportunity 10 do so.
NJ BarEeT-Of course, I did not know
about that IN 1855 the question was
again before the legislature. am in thar
year an act was passed authorizing the
gas commission, which had had added
TO Il the authority over electric light
companies. 10 license companies 10 make
and distribute water gas under certain
restrictions. and the board then started
an investigation ef the entire subject l
have here the preliminary report Of the
board made in 1873. and the final report
made IN 1850 upon that subject, which /
can leave with the committee II they
care 10 have them. They are very brief,
and they are simply portions Of the an
nUaI report OF the board.
Mr. Taylor-Make il q part OF your re-
marks
Mr.. Sims-Desllng with the question Of
carbon monoxide2
Mr.. Barker-Yes.
Mr.. Sims-Why not print # with your
remarks2
Nj TayIor-You need not stop now II
you vii pick out the portions you desire
70 put in and turn Il over 20 the stenog-
rapher We viii be glad 10 have 1t printed
as a portion OF your remarks.
Mg. Barker-I VIII do SO. IN the pur-
suit OF this inquiry the board, through
one OF more OF its members, examined
all Of the cases OF death from MGninst-
ing gas Of which they could learn IN
the principal cities Of the country. ! my
self took part IN that investigation ard
visited all the places mentioned in the
report. and some OF the time ] had one
other member Of the board, and some
times another member Of the board with
ne The result gas that in 1890 We recon-
mended the passage OF the Law which
would enable Us to grant licenses specify
ing TIE amount Of carbon nonOxide that
might be put into gas. and that license
20 be for a definite time or revocabIe. as
the legislature might think wise. The
result OF that proposition, or perhaps
that in combination with other things,
was that the provision about carbon
Uonoxide was repealed
Hr. TayIor-That Is. the 70 Per cent pro
vision vas repealed
Mr. Barker-Yes. sir.
Mr- Taylor-WhaC year was that
AZ Barker-1Sso
Mr. TayloT-Can you give Us the reason
for that2 You say il was the result OF
"a r~-,e
conclusion2 Why did the legislature and
the board and the public accept that as a
proper piece Of legislation
Mr. Barker-@he boards recommenda-
ton was slightly more conservative. The
board asked permission 70 issue special
licenses 10 the company in which the
amount Of carbon mOnOxide 70 be allowed
might be fixed and TO make those licenses
-evocable, but the legislature went fur
Their and entirely repealed the Law. The
proposition Of the board found very little
favor in the house Of Representatives. tbs
vote against It being about three 70 one,
the vote in favor Of the entire repeal of
the law being about three times the vote
for the provision suggested by the board.
Mr. Tayl0r-What reason vas advanced
n the debate in the legislature. regard
less OF the boards recommendation, for
the repeal Of that law?
Mr. Sims-Just a moment before you
answer that. Does this report you are
going to file give the recommendation OF
the board2
AIr Barker-Yes, and the reasons for Il.
The people who investigated the QueS-
tion thought, as a practical matter. the
deaths from Illuminating gas containing
10 per cent OF per cent Of carbon
mOnOxide were no more numerous than
those from gas with a larger percentage
Of carbon monoxide under the same con
ditions. and that was one reason That
is 70 say. rs people are generally exposed
70 this gas, II exposed az ali, they are
exposed sufficiently long 20 be as likely
10 be found dead with one gas as with
the other.
Mr. Taylor-In short, the board formed
the opinion that the gas was deadly
anyway?
Mr. Barker-Yes
Mr.. sims-Not the board. but the legis-
lature?
Mr.. Barker-Yes. the board and the
legislature too. l think We called special
attention 10 that. that coal gas IS itself
z dangerous gas. and that water gas is
also dangerous gas, but We find a great
many cases where the exposure seemed
70 be very similar IN one case as IN the
other, and people are resUScit2ted- and
then we ind that In ordinary cases, as
the exposures ordinarily are. very much
the same results occur IN either kind Of
case The gases work, however, in q
different way. The water gas works
largely through poisoning. the actual
effect upon the blood, while coal gas
works partly through poisoning, and
largely. probably, through suffocaton.
asphyxiation-
Mr. Taylor-You refer to water gas
working through poisoning; you mean the
monOxide in the gas acts as a poison2
8Ir- Berker-Indeed Il does. Then. again.
were the economic questions as related 10
the two gases
Mr. sims-Give them IN detail and very
particularly.
NJ Barker-There IS a conviction that
water gas might be made more economi-
caily, as practical matter, that It can
Dc made OF better quality. that is, Of a
higher candle power, and that It can be
used with exceptional facility IN the
manipulation OF large works, especially n
combination with coal gas, because Il Is
IN combination with coal gas, that
IS TO say, IN the form Of a mixed
gas, coal and water. that iiluminat-
ing gas is made practically now
throughout the country. There is an oplu-
ion. vel settled think, among engineers,
that IN most places the effort 70 manu-
facture either coal gas or water gas
alone and exclusively might be more
costly than 70 manufacture the two to-
gether. That IS, however, IN a measure
question OF locality, and could not be
laid down as an absolute rule, but It Is
a popular method, and is such because
Of the economies incident 10 Il.
Mr. Sims-In connection with the
Massachusetts, OF Boston case. infer
from what you say Il was urged on the
part Of those advocating the manufacture
Of water gas that in Boston Il would be
cheaper 20 make water gas, or a con-
bination, than 70 make a coal gas ex-
clusively7
Mr Rqr-yar-Af that fs--a