The Washington herald., 1910-04-05

pared to state that this city is not being
overcharged, and l can confirm that by
being cross-examined upon i; ii the con-
mittee desires it. From this statement
! they are not overeharged.
Mr.. Pearre-But what do you mean py
referring TO that statement, the accuracy
OF which you question with regard TO
! one or two items?
! Mr.. Humphreys question IL in this
repect, that / think they have done them
selves an injustice. l do not think they
| have allowed quite enough for accruing
appreciation. That is something that ex-
/ perts disagree upon to some extent.
/ Mr.. Aiken-What costs more in the
way of manufacturing gas now than two
years ago?
Mr.. Humphreys-ThatI have not been
able to analyze. / simply say that ! find
I that that is the fact in their statement.
that it is costing them about cents
more per 1000 than two years ago. l
have not had a full opportunity to go
into that. but that is a statement made
| by their own books.
Mr. Rothermel-Let NE make a sugges-
ton in the way of a question. $4,000 is
per cent and a fraction on $5,sOo,OOo.
Mr.. Humphreys-Yes sir.
Mr.. RothermeI-And that is based upon
gas that is sold at 80 cents per thousand
cubic feet?
Mr.. Humphreys-Yes sir.
Mr.. Observation-Disclosures if gas was
reduced to 50 cents a thousand. they
would still make over per cent on their
investment, would they notg
Mr.. Humphreys-How do you make that
out. sir?
Mr.. Rothermel-why here are the
figures.
Mr.. Humphreys cannot possibly fol-
low you. and l will say this. that on 20
cents per thousand feet. upon the figures
furnished by the company. they would
make a very large deficit at that price.
Mr.. GOldsborough-Yes we would go
into bankruptcy in a year
Mr.. Humphreys-Yes. It. shows on its
face that that would be the case
Mr.. Rothermel-But if you should sell
gas at 20 cents per thousand instead of
30 cents per thousand. you would still
have per cent left. would you not?
Mr. Humphreys-How would you have
that?
Mr.. Rothermel-That is very easily ex-
planned; il seems perfectly clear to me.
Mr.. Humphreys would be glad TO
have you explain it,
Mr.. Rothermel-If at 80 cents per thou
sand feet the company receives II per
cent and a fraction. would they not re-
ceive per cent at 50 cents a thousand?
Mr.. Humphreys-No. sir. they would
show il. And / am not making that
statement. so you cannot cross-examine
me upon that If you make that state
ment, you will have to subStantiate IT,
or course. it is not the truth. You are
making some kind Of an arithmeticaI
blundeT there or a mistake IN reasoning.
Mr.. Goldsborough-4You overlook the
fact that the cost has got TO come out
1t costs more than 20 cents. In other
words, the company made of that 30
cents the difference between the gas cost
and what we sell it for.
Mr.. Rothermel-What is the cost?
Mr.. Goldsborough-It costs in the neigh
borhood OF 50 cents a thousand TO make II.
Mr. Humphreys-And deliver it?
Mr. Goldsborough-Yes
Mr. Humphreys-That is. the total cost
at the burner is something over sixty
cents per thousand?
Mr. Goldsborough-Sixty cents thou
sand to make it and deliver it TO the
consumer at the meter. so that If we sell
It az ninety cents a thousand all that the
company makes is thirty cents a thou
sand. and, of course. not ninety cents. II
they sold it at tightly cents a thousand
they would make twenty cents. and if
they sold II at eighty cents thousand
they would make ten cents a thousand.
Mr. Humphreys-The cost per thousand
should be put on the amount OF gas sold.
and not upon the amount made. and
that is quite little above sixty cents.
have figured the amount of gas sold TO be
about sixty-seven cents in cost
Mr. Goldsborough does not know
the exact figure, and he will tell
you so. The question is, if the COM
pany charges ninety cents per thousand.
and if they sell 2.O54. 735.OC0 feet of gas. and
If it costs sixty cents per thousand. what
will be the profit? II is simply a matter
of arithmetical calculation. It shows that
there will be thirty cents profit which
viii be S6l6, 1850 In that answer I want
it distinctly understood that the question
addressed TO me takes into consideration
conditions which do not hold in the cost
II is not sixty cents. II is not even stated
at sixty cents in the company's statement
here with the correction that I speak OF,
an item omitted for depreciation and re-
pairs. and we all certainly know that
repairs should be included in the cost.
Mr.. Cox-What did they charge for re-
pairs and requirements?
Mr.. Humphreys-Tbere was actually ex-
pended for repairs $S7.622.s9 and if you
will permit me- I will explain just how
Il is. They estimate that the upkeep OF
the plant will cost seven cents per
thousand feet made and they make by
that a. charge of sl6l, 397-54 for the year
They have, during the year. actually ex-
pended $s7.622s9 for repairs, and they
deduct that, leaving an amount of s7s.-
lass, which they write up as part Of the
cost and show as a credit to cover the ac-
crued liability as against accruing de-
probation. so that the total amount of
the actual repairs made, and the allow
ance made for accruing depreciation
putting those together-is Sl6l. So. 81 Now,
in the case TO which I have referred.
namely. the separate calculations to show
the cost per thousand at the burner, none
OF that has been Included in the cost.
For fear there may be confusion In
with the remark made in the
early part of my remarks as to the
] make the point that de-
probation, which is figured on the basis
~ Z fh..rlrn,,l L.