Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-04-09
(Adycrtisemept.)
GAS COMPANY HEARING ON
THE COUDREY BILL.
Committee on District of Columbia,
House of Representatives,


The committee was called to order at
tchairman), presiding.
Statement of Mr.. Alexander c. Hum
phreys-( Continued).
The Chairman-I might state that there
has been a little change made in the Or
der of procedure since you appeared be-
for the committee the other day. The
committee has passed a resolution that
at these hearings the witness shall not
be interrupted by any one until he has
finished and then only by the members
Of the committee. G. f there is any one
from the outside who has any questions
TO submit, they will please submit them
to some member OF the committee, and
they will doubtless be asked of the wit
ness in that way. Now, Mr.. Humphreys.
you may proceed.
Mr. Humphreys-I thought it might be
well, Mr.. Chairman, If ! first cleaned up
few of the little items that have been
brought up by some of the witnesses who
have appeared here, and which, L nat
urally have directed my attention to in
tine investigation of the companyS affairs
which | have been making. If / give at
tention to these now it will bring matters
more up to date.
Take. for instance. the case of MIR. F.
meter had been cut out because he had
not at once paid a bill of s2.79.
Now, the bill referred to was for s.. 1,
or -. 80 net, which would have been the
amount of the bill if it had been paid
within the limit set, and was for gas
consumed from January IS to February
l6. 1910. The bill, however, was not rem
dered until February 2S, which was due
to the practice that they. have made
necessary by the time required in secur-
ing the meter statements, making and
recording the bills. and SO forth and, &C
cording 10 the agreement which these
consumers sign. this bill was due March
TO- and if it had been paid within the
period. it would have amounted to 81 70
net But not being paid after a four-day
margin, or March IA, it was put upon the
delinquent list. Mr.. Foster then wrote
letter to the company asking for an
extension of time, which was granted.
March 25 the bill still remained unpaid,
and the regular cutoff notice, i'm the
regular routine, was sent to him to the
effect that the meter would be removed
on the 9th if not paid. The bill was not
paid by March %, so the meter was re-
moved March 30. MIR. Foster testified be-
fore the committee March 81, or one day
later. After the hearing the meter was re-
set upon the specific agreement that the bill
be paid the next day. The bill was not
paid, but the meter stays there today,
and the account now stands $3.4l, the
bill which he complained Of. The gas
consumed up to March 10, which he had
consumed before he testified here g. Il
Tying, at the same proportion, he has
consumed at least 81 worth more. So
that instead of the bill being ST. the
amount involved now is $3.50; and If the
S.41 had been deducted from the IS de-
post. then the deposit would have been
reduced to s1.59; or, taking into account
the whole amount of gas consumed, by
deducting the total of the deposit. the
him without security to the value Of
s3.S3; that is, an amount against which
there would have been no deposit.
! have simply brought this out to show
the character of complaints that they
frequently have. But I confess at the
time / thought that while the rule in
being obeyed necessitated pretty sharp
treatment, yet / naturally wanted to in
vestigate it. the investigation showing
that the gentleman probably did not APP
preciate all the facts himself. and that
there was more involved in it than he had
supposed. AS l say, the property owner
is usually asked for deposit or guaran-
tee, and my investigation led me to think
that that is the case in which Mr.. Bride
is involved. If the man whose bill was
involved had put up his own deposit, Mr..
Bride would not have been involved in
any way. Mr.. Bride elected to guarantee
he was simply asked to make it good,
which was a straight business prOpo-
sition.
Now. taking up another loose end. the
question OF service pipes In connection
with DIR. Cuthbertson's complaint. l have
a telegram here from Milwaukee dated
April Of this year, as follows: CReads:)
We charge % cents foot from curb to
meter for service pipes So that in Mil
waukee, Mr.. Cary's city. they make that
charge it being exactly the same price
as is paid here, the difference being
which is more of a technical one than a
~ limit from curb to meter. whereas here
they charge from main to meter. But.
according to some rough estimates that
! have been able to make, with the time
at my disposal. there are about IS per
cent of the mains to which connections
are now being made that are inside o. the
curb or parking, so that that is tech
meal difference rather than real one,
because the services. while charged for
from the main to the meter. are really
charged for from point, in az per cent
of the cases inside of the curb. In re-
ferring to Mr. Cuthbertson's complaint.
did not have the testimony before me- but
as ] have ii in mind, I understood that
the amount that he stated was much
larger than ! found. / thought, how
ever, l would state the facts. and it
can be compared with the records
presumably as to the charge for the
residence at 22o4 E;varts street, Lang
don, Washington. D. C. According. to
me, he agreed to pay the usual rate.
namely, 20 cents per foot, and the total
charge upon that bill was 1855. As
you see, it was charged at the same
rate as Is paid in Milwaukee, namely.
- cents per running foot. In that con-
nection / would say that there came up
a question as to the laying OF pipes, in
extension of the system, and again my
investigation goes to show that the
larger part of these pipes are extended
under paved streets even now, and that
tr,fA Inc Nj nj
in connection with the company's opera
tions The company paid last year to
the District of Columbia for the re-
newing of pavements over new mains
laid chiefly, over repairs and new
services where the services did have &c
extend out into the street, the sum OF
s1es.1 which would be about six
tenths per cent per thousand on al
of the gas sold. And that also brings
up another interesting point. that 1t ID
not to the advantage of the company. Il
cause what 1t will have to pay for cut
ting and renewing the pavement viii
cost more than will be recovered from
the consumer for the laying or the pipe
Now the question was brought up thu
other day relative to the price of Goa
between 1907 and 1909. / take 1907 fol
my comparison because that was thu
year that / made close investigation
of the company's plant and affairs.
In 1907 the price of gas coal at TIN
east and west stations both was $3.05
The price in 1869 was $3.50 at the cas-
station and So As at the west station. Ii
1907 and 1909 the prices for ANTHRACITE
were the same-$4.SJ at the east station
tho west station That n