Evening journal., 1909-08-09
ENGINEER DE-
FENDS THE COAL
CONTRACTS
Continued IRON First Page.

Continued From First Page.
In Exhibit r. where by the most eX-
pert manipulation of facts obtained
from our records the alleged loss OF ef-
ficiency of said coal wasl3 pct. This
will be discussed In detail in the tables
OF the next exhibit.
Another portion OF the loss based up
on 2.400 tons Of coal at 15c per ton.
is stated at $500. Upon the effect Of
business depression il is implied that
the coal supplied in 1907-0S could have
been purchased in 190S.09 for 15 per
ton less yet there Is no conclusive evil
dence before your board that the War
ner Company could have contracted for
the Dodson coal at $500 per ton. Al
least It was not so bid upon when the
opportunity presented.
This comparative exhibit proves con-
cluslvely that the alleged loss Of $500
was not actually sustained by the city
Furthermore In connection with Eek
hibit e." It proves that. IN allowing "a
$40 pounds more coal in 19O7-0S for heating
banking. ETC.. than in i9OS-O9. there must
lave been an over jealous desire on The
part Of the station engineers to be alb
solutely fair TO the coal supplied IN the
year 1e07-os.
Exhibit ID.
This sheet consists OF full tabulatior
OF the tests made throughout the year
loos-o0. for the purpose OF checking the
quality Of the coal delivered. Your former
Chief Engineers contention. when this
contract was awarded. was that the evap.
oratlvo power OF the Lloydel coal had
been rated too high In the oficial test
be more conclusiveiy proven than by this
tabulntion which shows that on an aver.
age from nine tests this coal contained
II IL per cent more combustiblo matter
than the coal OF official test yet evapor.
ated but 9636 per cent. as much feed
water.
The contention is further sustained bs
the fact that the average Of work done
per one dollars worth Of coal IS 81 pei
cent IN excess Of that done on official test
also that the number Of gallons pumped
per one dollars worth OF coal Is per
cent Ia excess Of tho official test. Apply
ine this latter figure TO the years tonnag,
or coal bill the saving can be estimated
al 1866 @ S,13I2r.
Exhibit E.
FOR comparison with tho result shown
ON "Exhibit y" I have tabulated the re.
suits OF number OF special tests made
throughout the year le07-oS on Warner
coal and request that you give this table
your consideration.
Attention Is called to tho fact that two
OF these tests we're conducted by Mr.
Brasslneton In connection with the Holly
Engine duty trials on May 1870 and on
June o. 1905 Why these records IN his pos.
session wcrc overlooked ] do not pretend
TO explain but IL Is only fair 70 ask can II
be possible that he will deny that his own
ngures, submitted TO this department un'
der the above dates. convict tho company
now employing his expert services. OF
supplying coal that averaged 1876 pei
cent less efficient in eyaporative power
than that supplied for the ofncial contract
test
Exhibit t.
This IS a financial statement Of the cost
OF Goals during tic several contract
periods taken from our fnaneial records
During one perioX May 4. 1906 10 septem
: be- lsq6 ,.-cefls' was supplied by severa
dealers not under contract. This was oc
casioncd by the memorable strike Of tina
year and our coal was stored on open lot
near tho station.
The tables arc arranged for the actua
work done IN each period and are recon-
putcd as n the Holly Pumps had beel
used II Is interesting 10 note tho com
paratlvc cost OF the work done based o
the actual amount OF money paid eac
coal dealer.
IN concb,son wish 10 express a dee
regret that the Charles Warner Co, hav
taken up this controversy through the un
reliability Of the statement made 20 then
by their expert. and trust that tho fact
presented herein will not estranee III
friendly relations that have existed in tn
past between the SAID company and thl
department
Respectfully submitted.
John A. Kienle,
Chief Enginee