The Washington herald., 1910-04-09
EXPERT TESTIMONY ON GAS QUESTIONS
President Humphreys, Of Stevens institute
Again on the Stand.
PARTIAL STATEMENT AT THE MORNING SESSION

here. people do not find their bills much
reduced. 1t is human nature; 1t is nat
ural for the consumer, If he can buy
anything at a cheaper rate. gas, for in
stance. to burn more of it, and that un-
questionably has been the fact in regard
TO the reductions throughout the United
States I confess that 1 have deliberately
calculated upon this natural reduction in
making my estimates. At this reduced
rate. therefore. making the profits $5l6-
1851, which would have been the profit,
so far as I can calculate. at 80 cents for
the whole year. the returns on the Sc
cTlties, namely, of S5.S000O0. would have
been reduced from lis per cent TO 9,41
per cent. and on the physical assets from
713 per cent 10 5.S7 per cent. and on
the total value of the property from 81
per cent 10 A. per cent
Some question was also raised with re-
gard 10 the surplus and working capital,
and / draw the attention of the commit
tee 10 page OF the last report-that is,
the report OF 1909. dated February l. 1910
which shows that the surplus is drawn
upon that year to the extent of S23s, 900
in round figures, and which, of course,
reduced the working capital. And of that
S2SS,000 the same report on the next page
shows that S7S.0O0 went into extensions
of plant, and therefore into the fixed as
sets, reducing the liquid assets OF work
ing capital. Of course 10 that extent. II
the committee desires me 10 do so,
have figures here although I am pretty
sure that the record already made ap-
pears almost exactly as the figures ap-
pear here-namely. how I arrive at the
net cost of operating for the year 1909
and I viii repeat them here II the chair
man would like to have me do so. in or
der TO have them on the record for the
day
Mr. Coudrey-I would suggest that YOU
give them 10 the reporter, so that they
may appear in the record.
The Chairman-Have you the complete
statement, so that we can put it in the
record?
Mr. Humphreys do not want to give
all OF this 10 the reporter. because l need
some of it myself, but I can write 1t off
for him
Mr.. Coudrey-Yes, and insert it in the
record and then sou win have a COPY
too
Mr. Humphrey will check It with
this one; yes Now, ! also find that the
other day we made q difference between
the cost Of gas in 1909 and 1907 a little
higher than the facts warranted when
We come down to figuring out oil Of the
items. Figuring on exactly the same
basis which appears in my statement
which I will give TO the reporter. the
cost OF gas delivered for 1909 IS 655 cents
per 1,o00. Figured on the same basis for
1907. the cost was ga cents per 1000 or
an increase Of 81 cents per 1869
Now. I win give but a few figures not
with the idea that we can balance them
up, because that would require a COM
plete analysis involving every item OF
cost. but I would like to say just enough
about it 10 show. what 1 have already
hinted at, that II is very dangerous 20
take any Isolated case in making a COM
parisou. I have already shown that the
company had an increase Of cost through
the higher price Of coal Now I am GO
ing 10 show that that increase was large
ly wiped out in the net cost per thousand
for coal The gas coal for 1907 cost lbs
cents per thousand. The gas coal for
1893 cost 1886 cents per thousand. or an
increase Of 05S cents per thousand feet
sold, but when We come 70 the returns
from residUals. although, as 1 have al
ready shown. the actual prices received
were the same. the net receipts per
thousand were as follows: for 1907, 3.44
cents. and for 1909 397 cents per thousand.
In other words, they secured a better re-
suit from the 1909 coal. They paid more
for it, and they got q little better result,
especially in the residuals, showing an
increase in receipts from the residuals of
053 cents, almost exactly wiping out the
difference in the increased cost OF coal Of
IS cents. Therefore. the final comparison
is that the coal less the residuals, for
1907 was S.54 cents. and 1909 $50 cents, or
an Increase Of only .05 Of q cent.
On the other hand. as I have shown.
the oil was bought for less. and shows
a decrease per thousand of 9.35 cents.
Now. there is the item of taxes. The
amount paid for taxes in 1907 was SlIO,-
055.21, which would be equal to 5.s3 cents
per thousand feet sold. based upon the
number Of feet sold that year That is
the way I have been figuring IL each
time. I have been using each time as
the divisor the gas sold in the year re-
ferred TO, and will show you in mo-
ment why I make that distinction In
1907 the company paid for taxes S13l, 1O3. %,
equal to SIS cents per thousand on the
gas sold that year. or an increase between
the two. comparing the cost of gas per
thousand, of almost exactly one-half a
cent per thousand, or, more exactly, -
cents. Looking at it from a little diff
feTent point OF view. and as also another
example Of how careful you have 70 be
as to how you take your figures for
comparison, If for each year we divide
the amount paid for taxes by the gas sold
in 1872. we ind that there is an increased
cost Of L02 cents per thousand, a little
over cent thousand increase in taxes,
figuring it that way.
Now. in the same classification which
you see here, and which appears on page
? Of the report under discussion, we find
items. taxes paid collector District of
Columbia: United States inspector gas
and meters, District of Columbia labora- |
tories for inspection gas and meters |
District Of Columbia inspector plumbing |
&c" Nov, taking that total amount |
which I call taxes and inspections. we |
have for 1901 Ga cents; and in 1908 6.73 |
cents. The difference between the two is |
not great. but a large item of cost for |
each year. In other words. the taxes !
Inspections. and the like cost the COM |
pany last year 81 cents per thousand |
feet on every thousand feet sold. While l |
have not been able to make the analysis |
Of general expenses in a way that would |
be al all conclusive I have cnnle across |