The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1909-01-30

The District committee of the House
yesterday gave a hearing on the bill TO
limit the amount of carbon mouoXide
in the gas supply of the District of Co
Iumbia to 10 per cent Representative
Taylor presided.
Among those who appeared were For
rest +. Barker. chairman of the board
Of gas and electrE light commissioners
OF Massachusetts; EdWard G.. Love, an
inspector Of gas in the city Of New
York; Alfred Forstall. gas engineer Of
New York, and John McInhenny. of
Philadelphia, consulting engineer Of the
Washington GasIight Company.
Mr.. Barker Testifes.
Following Is the testimony Of Mr.. Bar
ker:
AIr. BARKER have been a member
OF the board Of gas and electric light
commissioners since Its creation. and ]
have been chairman Of that board since
1884 am here at the disposal of the
committee. I hardly know i'm what the
committee may be most interested. and
I will answer any questions that L may
be able to which the committee may
desire to ask.
Mr.. TAYLOR-It is the custom Of the
committe 70 allow a witness TO make
any statement he may have TO make
with reference to the question we are
investigating as completely as possible
and then ask questions, and not inter
rupt him too much. If you have no
statement, Of course, any member or the
committee might ask questions or YOU
II you have any statement TO make
along the line OF the manufacture or
water gas and its effect upon public
health and its danger and menace 70 the
Dublic safety. and so on, I wish you
would make il. and We will interrupt
YOU. Il necessary, to ask questions.
Mr.. BARKER-PeThaps the committee
would be interested IN a brief historical
statement with respect TO he consldeTa-
ton of this question in MASSACHUSETTS,
where, perhaps. more work has oeeh
done in respect to 1t than anywhere else
IN the world.
Mr.. TAYLOR might say thar Mass
achUsetts has been cited number OF
.e o.
url.s t- ....r-
. ...
81
IN Illuminating gas TO 10 per cent OF
the volume of gas. This act was pass-c
In 1850.
II may be Of interest 10 know thai
il was not passed upon The recomme nda'
ton IN the report OF any public officer
either board OF health, or any person
in authority to supervise or inspect gas
We have had gas Inspector in Mass
achCsetts since, ] think, 1850, ana IN the
report or the incumbent Of That ofdc'
in the year 1850. and fOr 1850 or three
years previously. there were suggestion
and recommendation with respect ID
legislation defining the purity AID quail
ity Of gas TO he delivered ia the State
but no recommendation HstL respect q
carbon mOuOzide.
Those communications related &
candle power and the amount Uf sui
phur impurities and ammonia. ] men
tion this because il is such a larIilia
fact that we have had O. thorough Ia
vestigauOH Of the subject there. or ii
least an extensive investigation. and IN
general assumption. / suppose, w0II
be that that investigation took Pike
before the Legislation, but IL took plac
afterward
These recommendations were made b
the inspector, anu when the TeCgumaE
datiOns found form en- legislation On
CarbOniC oxide provision had bee
added. It is significant fact that at tina
time WaTer-gas promotion was common
or uaQ becu common IN the larger elite
OF the country and tie evils of compg
utiOn had not been ds wen uudeTsto1
then as they have since come 10 %
and the water gas had won its way a
a competing gas ana / m-utlOH tl
as significant because the contests wi,
respect 10 water gas Eo-Callels and coo
gas have always been prominent. ll
the competitive features have aIW4y
been prominent ia any discussion
the subject.
Made Water Gas Impossible.
The 10 per cent provision in the la
made the Introduction Of water gas I'm
possible. and 81 was that fact which Dc
10 the agitation for tue repeal Of q
law. This agitation reached its heigi
IN 1854 There had been an attempt
promoters of the wateT-eas supply
get authority 10 make and distribu
their gas ia the city Of Boston. whe
heretofore only cOalag8s had been sui
piled, and as part OF that attempt can
the effort 20 secure "a repeal OF this Iar
member OF the House of Represent
tives that year, and so the recoIIecl,
of the event Is quite vivid in my min
The committee which was "a joint con
mittce AS our legislative coumitre
mostly are. favored The repeal of tl
law that is 20 say. the majority The
was a minority dissenting. The m-a
ure tor the repeal or the law pass
the house almost unanimously, art
discussion. but IL was bitterly contest
iu the Senate by the swo interests, q
company iu possession or the field b
ing aFIayed upon one side in favor
the law. and the people who desired
enter the field DeIuz arrayed upon q
other side iu favor or Its repeal
Mr.. TAYLOH.-Taa- la lu say, n
people who desired 10 enter the Ae
were in favor o. the repeal Of The Ia
providing for 10 per cent mOuoXIde2
Alr. BAREER-Hes. sir they desIT
ID make and distribute water gas
Boston.
lIT. sIMS-WLicl was prohibited "a
der the 10 per cent provision
Contest in Legislature.
Mr. EARkFR-Ir. was impossible "a