The Washington herald., 1910-04-09
GAS COMPANY HEARING on THE
GODFREY BILL.
Committee on District OF Columbia.
House of Representatives,

tchairman). presiding
Statement Of Mr. Alexander c. Hum
phreys--(Continued).
The Chairman might state that there
has been a little change made in the or
der of procedure since you appeared be-
fore 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. SO # there Is any one
from the outside who has any questions
TO submit. they viii please submit them
20 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 thought it might be
we'll Mr.. Chairman, if I 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 10 IN
the investigation of the cOmpany's affairs
which I have been making. II I give at
tentlon 10 these now it will bring matters
more up TO date
Take. for instance, the case of Mr.. T.
d. Foster. who complained that his gas
meter had been cut out because he had
not at once paid bill of S2.79.
Now, the bill referred TO was for S3u,
or s279 net, which would have been the
amount Of the bill If 1t had been paid
within the limit set. and was for gas
consumed from January IS 70 February
Is, 1910. The bin, however, was not rem
deFed until February Is, 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, ac-
cordng TO the agreement which these
consumers sign, this bill was due March
10. and if it had been paid within the
period. ii would have amounted TO $2.19
net. But not being paid after a four
days margin, or March IA, It was put
upon the delinquent list Mr. Foster
then wrote a letter to the company ask
ing for an extension Of time, which was
granted. On March . the bill still re-
malned unpaid and the regular CUTOFF
notice, in the regular routine, was sent
10 him 10 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 removed on March go Mr..
Foster testified before the committee on
March 81, or one day later. After the
hearing the meter was reset upon the
specific agreement that the bill be paid
the next day The bill was not paid. but
the meter STAYS there to-day and the ac-
counts now stands S3l, the bill which
ne complained Of The gas consumed up
10 March 10. which he had consumed be
fore he testified here. Ss.42 more, and
now, the date that I am testifying. at
the same proportion, he has consumed at
least 50 worth more. So that instead Of
the bill being $2.79. the amount involved
now is Ss.SS; and If the S2n had been de-
Quoted from the S. deposit, then the de-
posit would have been reduced to $L59;
or. taking into account the whole amount
OF gas consumed. by deducting the total
OF the deposit, the company would have
supplied gas to him without security to
the value OF S5.S3. that is an amount
against which there would have been no
deposit.
I have simply brought this out TO show
the character OF complaints that they
frequently have But confess at the
time I thought that while the rule in
being obeyed necessitated pretty sharp
treatment yet I naturally wanted to in
vestigate It, the investigation showing
that the gentleman probably did not ap-
preciate all the facts himself, and that
there was more involved in it than he had
supposed. AS I say, tho property owner
is usually asked for a deposit or guaran-
tee, and my investigation led me TO
think that that IS the case IN which AIr.
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 guaran-
tee the account. and the bill not being
paid, he was simply asked TO make it
good. which was a straight business
proposition.
Now. taking up another loose end. the
question of service pipes in connection
with DR.. Cuthbertson's complaint. have
a telegram here from Milwaukee. dated
April / Of this year, as follows: Reads) /
We charge % cents a foot from curb to
meter for service pipes" SO that in Nil
waulee, 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
real one-that in Milwaukee they dis |
tinctly limit from curb 10 meter, whereas /
here they charge from main TO meter !
But. according to some rough estimates |
that I have been able 10 make. with the /
time at my disposal there are about IS |
per cent OF the mains TO which cOnnec- |
lions are now being made that are inside /
of the curb or parking, so that that Is /
technical difference rather than a real I
one. because the services. while charged /
for from the main to the meter, are really !
charged for from point, in IS per cent /
OF the cases. inside Of the curb In re- |
ferring TO Mr.. Cuthbertsons complaint, 7 /
did not have the testimony before me, but |
as 1 have It in mind. understood that 4
the amount that he stated was much |
larger than I found. I thought, however,
1 would state the facts, and il can be !
compared with the records previously
made. His complaint was presumably as to
the charge for the residence ct 22O4
Evarts street, Langdon, Washington, d.
c. According TO his application. which I
have before me. he agreed to pay the
usual rate, namely, % cents per foot. and
the total charge upon that bill was $3.50.
As you see It was charged at the same
rate as is paid IN Milwaukee. namely, g5
cents per running foot. In that connec-
ton I would say that there came up a
question as TO the laying of pipes, in ex-
tension of the system, and again my in
vestlgauon goes 10 show that the larger