The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1916-08-11

relatively few in comparison with
those who would be better pleased to
pay such a rate with the prospects of
more gas than to pay the old ascent
rate and have no gas when it is most
needed.
And SO there are not so many peo-
pie. probably, who will consider that
their interests are being properly safe
guarded by Governor Capper's state
utilities commission, if the latter in
terferes any longer with settlement of
the gas controversy on a higher rate
business.
This. at any rate, seems &c be senti-
ment that the State Journal has found
among the people and this paper has
a fairly wide acquaintance.
Here is a little case in point. A
young woman who is the sole support
of herself and mother and who main
tains a modest little home said the
other day within the hearing of State
Journal representative that she would
much prefer to pay 35 cents a thou
sand feet for gas and have a depend
able supply for cooking and a little
heating than to have no gas at all, or
practically none in the winter time,
and have to fuss with coal in a mon
key cook stove and also in e. heating
stove. She added that she would glad
ly economic in some other direction
if necessary in order that she might
pay for what gas she would use at a
higher rate.
The State Journal uses considera BILE
quantities of gas all the year round
and naturally wants its gas as cheaply
as it can get it. But the State Journal,
like the young woman just quoted.
also prefers to pay a rate for gas that
is sufficiently remunerative to the gas
company to permit the latter to pro-
vide it with a goodly supply of gas,
rather than to wake up some fine cold
morning in the winter time and find
that it has no gas at all, or practically
none.
Nor would the higher rate bear
heavily on the modest consumers of
gas, the people who do not burn more
than two or three thousand feet a
month, even in the winter time. 1t
would only add a relatively few cents
to their usual gas bill.
However, the minimum rate of 81 a
month, which was contemplated by
the federal courts would be unjust
and a hardship on the modest gas con-
sumers, the poor people, and indeed,
an unfair burden on all gas consumers,
and especially in the summer time.
The gas company, it is announced
today, has consented to lower the
proposed minimum rate from 81 to
so cents.
And the question now IS, will the
state utilities commission really serve
the people by permitting the gas con-
troversy be settled on other than the
ascent rate basis, or will it continue
to play politics with this big gas bub-
Bile. or question, and politics that are
well-nigh indefensib1e?
But the people finally seem to be
awake to the merits of the gas con-
troversy and also their own interests,
and so the politics that may be played
by the utilities commission in the gas
premises from now on are likely to be
boomerangic.
Robert Stone, one of the receivers
and attorneys, pertinently says: For
four years the commission has sue
ceeded in keeping the company down
to a confiscatory rate, but it has ruin
ed the service! The company has been
compelled to furnish gas at a low
cost and below the price provided by
Its contracts in other cities. The re-
suit has been that the company has
been utterly unable to pay its annual
obligations and at the same time make
needed extensions in new fields''
Just one more point. There is JUS
tice to the criticism that the receiver
ships under which the Kansas Natural
Gas company have been staggering
these last few years, and with their
enormous incidentals in the way of
fees to an army of lawyers, have been
excessively costly, outrageously ex-
orbitant in fact. But all litigation is
expensive whether it concerns the af
fairs of big corporations or individuals.
and the longer litigation is continued
the larger are the costs it piles up,
both legitimate and otherwise
And while it is all very we'll to say
or to argue that the people should not
be compelled to pay a higher rate for
their gas in order, and among other
things, to replenish the considerable
funds of the gas company that have
gone into the pockets of receivers and
their lawyers, the important fact
should not be forgotten that the Kan
sas Natural Gas company was thrown
| into these expensive receiverships be-
cause it could not make both ends
meet on the gas rate it was permitted
to charge.
Public authority, thru the medium
of the state attorney generals office
and the public utilities commission
played it's part in prostrating this big
company with the blight of receiver.