The Washington times., 1910-04-09
IN THE GAS INQUIRY
BEFORE THEHOUSE COMMITTEE

already limited Al, that It IS very dan
SerOus 70 take any isolated case in
ma KING q comparison ] have ALREADY
SHOWN that the company had an in
crease OF cost through the higher price
OF coal Now ] am going 10 show that
tnat tncreaEe was largely v-ired f3r1t e.
the net cost per thousand for coal. The
gas coal Tor 1877 cost 1Iss cents ue-
thousand. The gas coal for 100 c0sr
lz-55 cents per thousand. or an iricrease
OF o-5o cents per thousand feet sold hr1f
When we come 70 the returns from res
iuualSs although as / have already
shown the actual prices received vre-e
the same the net receipts Der thousand
were as follows for 1877, 81 cents, and
IOr lSU5 ~ cents per thousand In other
words, they secured a better result from
the LIZ cocL They paid more for it.
ana tney got a little better result espe-
clally IN the residuaiss showing an In
crease in receipts from the residuaIs Of
u.55 cents almost exactly WfpinZ out tia
difference IN the increased cost Of COIL
OF = cents Therefore, the final com
pstr1son Is that the coal, less the res
iduale, for 1907 was So cents, AID 1919
S1s cents, or an increase Of only % Of
a cent
On the other hand: as 7 have shown.
the OIL was bought for less ard shows
a decrease per thousand Of 355 cents
Now there IS the item Of taxes The
amount paid for taxes ia 1907 was S110.-
ua5-If. which would be equal 10 5-s3 cents
per thousand feet sold. based upon the
number Of feet sold that year. That Is
the way have been figuring IL each
time have been using each time as
the djvisor the gas sold IN the year re-
1erred 10. and I VIII show you in q no
ment why ] make that distinction In
80 - a. me company paid FOR taxes SlSl--
1865 equal TO SIS cents per thosand 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 ex-
acuy. 10 cents. Looking at il from a
lltlie dlferent point Of view, and as asso
another example OF how careful you
nave 10 De as 70 how you take your fig
ureS for comparison. r for each year re
divide the amount paid for taxes by the
Eas sold IN 1893 We ind that there is an
Increased cost Of L12 per thousand, a
little over a cent a thousand increase in
taxes, figuring Il that way
Now In the same classic cation WbICl
you see here and which appears on page
Of the report under discussion. we ind
items, taxes paid collector District OF
Columbia United States inspector gas
and meters District OF Columbia labor
AZORES fOr Inspection gas and meters
District Of Columbia inspector plumbing,
&c Now, taking that total amount
which cal taxes and Inspections, We
have for 1907 81 cents. and in 1875 So
cents The difference between the two
IS not great, but a large item OF cost Tor
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
have not been able 20 make the analy-
SIS OF general expenses IN a way that
would be at all conclusive. have come
across some items. and happen 20
Know one which increased considera bly,
the general expense For instance last
year the company had 10 pay for the eX-
pense OF hearings, Of appraiseEents. and
the ike, which are expensive For IN
stance, the appraisement made BY my
firm, rs I have already stated. occupied
my whole engineering and accounting
forces for. 7 think, two months, and, OF
T-s-A 20 - 60
peCially so with the men who have the
requisite ability learning. and reputa-
ton And IN the same way these hear
ings all cost money I would not dare
throughout ire country. and this item OF
cost should be thought OF IN connection
with such investigations as the present
one.
Now. there was something said about
the average sales per meter, and 7 e.
peC1allT want TO correct some figures
mat 1 lntroouced there. because IN my
haste 70 answer a number OF questions
asked at the same time. and in one IN
stance at least. ] confused the average
sales per meter with the minimum At
that tine ] was only making an est
mate, for 7 had made no figures at
that time I have done the actual CON-
putting now. however. and I would Ike
20 have these figures taken as correcting
any others that may have introduced
in that respect
Taking the total amount OF gas sold
IiEOuEu me meters llCluCLng al me
largest CONSUMERS the Government Of
fees and the Ike. and basinE II UPON tha
average per thousand received. say 81
cents per thousand the average receipts
per meter last year for the year were
$3.50. or for the month, S3-16 II, how
ever. those same sales had been made
upon the basis OF 90 cents per thousand.
which was SO for half the year the
average sales per meter would have
been S555 for the year. OF 1927 Tor the
month, about s cents per day think
that Is the kind OF figure that ought
10 be very instructive i IS difficult FOR
the Iaymsn really TO appreciate that the
average can be so low. OF course Z
comes from the fact that there ara z
great many very small CONSUMERS, and
this has led 70 the deTfsing OF a certain
plan OF charge which ! viii refer 20 fu
a moment where the price includes g.
charge known as the readiness to serve
charge" This IS system OF charge
which is being considered IN this c0un-
try. It Is extremely complicated but e
IS based upon the fact that there are 50
many consumers who do not burn
enough gas 70 pay the expense OF keep
ing them on the books
The further testimony viii appear
later ayivt-