CITY COUNCIL.

Colonist, Volume XXXI, Issue 5299, 22 August 1888, Page 3

CITY COUNCIL.

THE GAS QUESTION. The adjourned meeting of this Council held for the purpose of considering the tenders for the supply of gas coal took place last night, Cr Graham ocoupying the chair, and all the Councillors, with the exception of his Worship the Mayor, were present. Cr J. Harley raised an objection to Cr Graham taking the chair without again being voted thereto, but this was overruled. Cr Webster then moved that the tender, of Mr J. C. Burford to supply Collingwood ooal for 12 mouths be accepted, the Council having the option to take round ooal at 21a per ton, nuts at 18s 6d per ton, or slack at 16s per ton, subject to a reduction of 6d per ton when deliyered over the Corporation wharf. Cr J. Harley moved that before Cr Webster proceeded the returns asked to be furnished by the Surveyor should be read. There was then read the following EETURN:— « To his Worship the Mayor and City Council. Sir and Gentlemen,—ln complianoe with your request, that I should report on the relative value of Brunner and Collingwood coal in the manufacture of gas, I have the honor to report that I have carefully considered the value of each coal for such purpose with the following results :— In ascertaining the yield and value, of Brunner coal, I have based my calculations on its alrrost exclusive use at the gas works for a period of four years, viz., from August, 1883, to August, 1887' ' Brunner Coal. From August, 1883, to August, I§B4, the total quantity of coal carbonised was 128? tons 13 cwt, producing 13,987,590 feet of gas, being a yield of 10,860 feet per ton. Illumiur ating power, 20 candle. From August, 1884, to August, 1885, the quantity of coal carbonised was 1382 tons 12 cwt, producing 14,875,620 feet of gas, being a yield of 10,763 feet per ton. Illuminating power, 20 candle. From August, 1885, to August, 1886, the quantity of coal carbonised waß 1575 tons 19 cwt, producing 16,409 860 feet of gas, being a yield of 10,450 feet per ton. Illuminating power, 20 candle. From August, 1886, to August, 1887, the quantity of coal carbonised has been 1650 tons 18 cwt, produeiDg 17,983,420 feet of gas, belia^a yield of 10,900 feet per ton. During six months of the year we u3ed exclusively : Brunner coal, during three months we used J exclusively Coal Pit Heath, and during three months we jjsed exclusively Collingwood. During the three months' use of Coal Pit Heath coal the illuminating power of gas was 18 candle. During the three months' use of Collingwood coal the illuminating power of gas was 23 candle, and during the six months' use of Brunner coal the illuminating power of gas was 20 candle. The average yield of gas for the four years ending August, 1887, has therefore been 10,743 feet per ton of coal carbonised. Collingwood Coal. From Angnst, 1887, to August, 1888, the total quantity of Collingwood coal carbonißed, and which lias been exclusively used, has been 1740 tons 6 cwt, producing 18,743,300 feet of gas, being a yield of 10,770 feet per ton, the illuminating power throughout the year being 23 candle. Therefore, assuming from the foregoing returns the average yield of each ooal to be 10,700 feet per ton, then the relative values of the two coals are as follows: —

Value of Brunner coal, 20s per ton. I have, &n., W. Lightfoot, City Surveyor. Cr Webster said that after their past experience he should have thought it unnecessary to go into figures, but as figures had been produced he also had gone into figures which he would produce, and these he had taken from the Surveyor's gas reports, but instead of taking th» four years preceding the uee of Collingwood coal he had only taken the year 1885-86, and the year the Collingwood coal was uted, for by this means an accurate result would be arrived at. He also said he bad compared the coals used in these years from a money point of view only. He found then that in 1885-6 when Brunner coal was used it yielded at the rate of 10,450 feet of gas per ton, wbibt Collingwood coal yielded 10.770 feet, there being a lifference in favor of Collingwood coal of 320 feet per ton, or an extra production for the year of 556,800 feet. This quantity—taking onethird for cooking at 5s lOd per 1000 and two-thirds for lighting at 9s 2d per 1009 feet was equal to £224 5s 4d. In other words they derived 23 7d a ton more revenue from Collingwood coal than from Grey, and taking into consideration the fact that Collingwood coal gas was 15 per cent more brilliant than the Grey, it was considerably cheaper to the gas consumer at the prices of the present tenders than the Grey coal. The Grey coal at 18s per ton plus the 15 per cent difference in illuminating power—2sß|d —brought that coal up to 203 B£d per ton, whilst the Collingwood coal at 21s, less its extra productiveness of 2s 7d a ton, gave its real value at 183 5d a ton, thereby showing it to be 2s 3^d a ton cheaper than the Grey, and on a consumption of 1850 tons for the year this was near a saving ofTJSII 19s 7d. Figures might be made to show two or three different tales, but he maintained the accuracy of those ho had given, which were based on the records of the gasworks books. The question, he said, was a gas consumer's question, and not a ratepayers one, and when they found 130 principal consumers asking them to continue the use of Collingwood coal, and when its superiority was accompanied by a lesser coßthe thought the Council would' have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion. Cr J. Harley, iv a long speeoh, said he would second Cr Webster's motion. It was aftewarda ruled that Cr Saott had already seconded the motion. Cr Akersten said that at their la3t meeting Cr Webster accused him ef maintaining & fallacy, and n»w that Councillor said that another Councillor, with great astuteness, has shown different results from his figures. Without making any claim, he might say he had spent a great deal of time on this matter, and had been engaged till one o'clock that morning. He was going to offer them nothing of his own imagiuiog. for he made use of their manager's words and reports, and it was somewhat astonishing that he made the result to 03 about the same amount as Cr j Webster, but on the other side, Cr Webster told them that in 1885-1886 only Brunner j coal was used, but he objected to that tiateraent, as he was able to prove that Coal Pit Heath coal was also used in that year, and the Gas Manager admitted that this was 10, He quoted from a newspaper report of Auguit, 1886, that Cr Trask asked how it was that Brunner coal was not alone used, as some years before it yielded 700 ft more per ton. The Gas Manager then replied that Coal Pit Heath Coal had greatly improved. In that year, too, the Manager said he had tested Collingwood coal, and it yielded 9990 ft of gai per ton, the illuminating power being 23 candles. At last meeting he ■ estimated the quantity of ooal tbat would be required for the year at 2200 tous, but from what he had since learnt, .he did not think the quantity would exceed 2000 tons, and therefore he would use that as the base of his calculation. From August, 1886, to January, 1887, their Manager reported that nearly 14 million feet of gas of 20 candle power had been produced from Grey coal—Brunner and Coal Pit Heath mixed, and as they knew that Coal Pit Heath coal did not yield more than 18 candle power gas, he contended that the Brunner coal must have given more than 20 candle gas—there was a return of some years back giving Brunner coal credit of yielding 21 candle power gas, but ,;ino3 he had been in the Council Brunner coal had never had s fair test to bis knowledge. Referring to the tests of Collingwood oeal h< said that a packed sample testae in November, 1886, gate at the ratt of 990(

feet per ton. From January to Februaryi 1887, this ooal yielded at the rate of 1ft,688 feet; from February to 30th Apri', 10,705 |feet; from 30th April to 25th November, 10,100 feet; from 25th November to 15th February, 1888, 11,297 feet; and from Ist March, 1&88, to 30th June, 10,903 feet; so that the mean yield was 10 599. - He said, however, it was Btrange that the last 14 days in February were unaccounted for in this report, and he questioned whether that might not account for the larger, yield about that period. ;In order to be perfectly fair to the Collingwood coal, however, he would put down its yield at 10,900 feet, for the coal appeared to have improved. On the 3rd inst the gas manager reported that the yield of Brunner coal was 10,900 feet per ton. From the Collingwood coal they had only obtained one ton of coke from every 60 tons of coal, whilst from the Grey ocal they got one ton of coke for every 14 tons of coal, then'Collingwood coal gave 6| gallons of tar per ton, and Grey 8 gallons. Of lime, Collingwood required life bushels per ton, and Grey 14 bushels, but of spent lime there was a farthing in favor of the Brunner. Taking the relative values of the coals, Collingwood at 21s, ■ with Is- 4Jd added for lime, made it' 22s 4£d, against Brunner at 18s, with Is 7d added for lime, or a total of 19s 7d. They had, however, to credit,the Collingwood coal, with 5d for coke (per ton), Is 6sd for tar, and £d for Bpentlime-^—together la ll£d, which deducted from 22s 4£d, left its value at 21s sd. The Brunner coal had to be credited Is 9£d for coke, 23 for tar, and |d for spent lime—together 3s lOd, which deducted from 19s 7d left its I value at 15s 9d per ton. against 21s 5d for [ Collingwood. The difference in illuminating power between 20 candles for Brunner and 23 for Collingwood would, however, add 2s 5d per ton to the former, making it 18s 2d against 21s sd. Thus there was a difference in favor of Brunner of 3s 3d per ton. Assuming they had had sufficient trial of the Coal Pit Heath coal he would leave that out of the question, the second alternative then was to accept the Collingwood coal tender. For 2000 tons they would have to pay at 21s £210Q, but with the credits he had mentioned for coke, &c, this would be reduced to £2041 13s 4d. The third alternative was to accept the tender for Biunner coal at 18s. This would cost £1800, or after deducting the credits, only £1575, but the gas would be only of 20 candle power. The fourth alternative was to decline both tenders, and ask the tenderers to supply 1000 tons of Brunner at a cost of £787 10s, and 10S0 tons of Collingwocd at £1020 16s Bd, making the total csst £1803 6s 8d for 2000 tons, and by doing this they would get a gas of 22 candle power—only losing one candle. He suggested that if they used both coals Collingwood might be used for Fridays and Saturdays. Notwithstanding the difference in the coals, which to him appeared so great, he would give due respect to the petition from gas consumers, asking the Council to give them the brightest gas possible, for the question was very largely a gas consumers one. If then, they could effect a saving of over £200, and give the gas users the full benefit of the Collingwood gas on the busiest days of the week, and at other times only one candle power less, he thought it would be a good thing. Ihey had been studying retrenchment, and he did not think they would throw away something like £200 a year. He would move an amendment in the direction of his last suggestion. Cr Trask said they had been fighting that question for the last 15 or 18 months. He had no doubt at all that the Collingwood coal gas was the best, and the coal was cheaper 15 months ago at the prices, but when they received the next tender* it was a shilling a ton more, and the tender was accepted when there was not a full Coun cil. Now, as a man of business, he could not see his way to vote for Collingwood coal at 21s when Brunner was 3s a ton cheaper, for this would make a difference in the year of about £300 in the actual price, and as far as he could make out, of another £100 in the value of the coke and tar produced and the saving of fire bars. Twelve months ago he asked the Surveyor whether the Collingwood coal did not affect the fire bars, and the Surveyor said it did considerably, but now the Surveyor contradicts this. The Surveyor said that after a year's trial he could not sea that there was any difference in wear and tear between uhe two coals. Cr Trask: Then the Collingwood coal must have improved. Consumers of gas were crying out for a reduction in price, but they could i.ot make any till the works were out of debt, and they had a credit balance. Now, however, there) was less to credit than there was 12 months ago, and consequently it was impossible to i educe the price. If, however, they accepted the tender for Brunner coal they would save £400, and would be able to reduce the gas lOd a thousand. Thtre was never any fault found with ihe gas when they used Brunner coal formerly, and other towns were satisfied with that coal. If they used Brunner coal and reduced the price of gas lOd, it would not only benefit the gas consumers, but also the ratepayers, as the street lighting would cost less. He was not going to run down the Collingwood coal, but he maintained that they should act in this matter as they would in their private concerns. It was a pity the tenderer for Collingwood coal had not reduced his price, but iv the face of the Surveyor's report, which showed the Brunner coal to be 2s cheaper, and in face of the elaborate statements of Cr Akersten, he could not see how they could do otherwise than accept the lowest tender. If they did not do this and lower the price of gas, he thought the consumers would-com-plain. He moved as an amendment that the tender of Messrs J. H. Cock & Co for Brunner coal or nuts be accepted. He added that he considered they were indebted to the Collingwood Coal Company for having brought downthe cost of coal. Cr Coleman said that at last meeting he considered it would be more delicate to deter the consideration of the tenders, and he thought they did well in doing so. He had in the meantime tried to workout the figures, but he had not arrived at the same conclusion as Borne of the Councillors. He had arrived more nearly the results sshown by the Surveyor. Regarding Cr Akereten's suggestion to mix the two coals, ha said he would rather see an experiment made before they did that, for it happened frequently that in combustion one good coal would damage another good one, and the result might be a less satisfactory gas than from either Experiments on a small scale, too, were frequently unsatisfactory, for naturally it took time for the manager to discover the best method of working. If they were a gas producing company it would be their duty to produce at the cheapest rate, and to produce such gas as the people would consume the greatest quantity of, but he understood the object of their works was simply to produce gas, and not to make a profit. His interest would clearly be in the direction of the cheaper gas, but they had a petition before them, and be believed the gas consumers did prefer - and he thought they were wise in doing so—the better gas at the higher price. Cr Everett said that during the time they used Brunner coal they were able to reduce the price of gas, but since they had used Collingwood coal, though they had been urged to further reduce the prioe, they had been unable to do co, for the works were making no profit. The best months of the year were passing away, and yet they had only £118 to ciedit, and by the summer this would be converted into an overdraft of up to £300- Originally the price of gaa in Nelson was 14s 2d per 1000, but it had been reduced to 9s 2d, whilst they used Brunner coal which now was not considered fit to use. He was not going to say the Collingwood coal did not produce better light, but the Brunner coal produced as much gas, and he thought it I would be fairer to take it, especially if, as the Surveyor said, it was 2s a ton cheaper. If the people would be content with that gas, they might be able to reduce the price, but with Collingwood coal, though the light would be better, he saw no hope of any reduction. He considered, however, that it was a consumers' question, and if people did not agree with the petition presented |last Friday, why had they not protested: against it ? He desired to economise, and so did several other Councillors, notably, Cr Webster, but unless that Councillor in his reply could, show him it was better to give 2s a ton mOre, he should not'vote for the use of the Collingwood coal. Cr J. Harley seconded the amendment, but said he did not know what it was, and then intimated that he merely seconded in order to speak again, adding that he did not mean tc I vote for he amendment. | Cr Akersten asked whether Cr Harlej meant what he said. - ; t Cr Harley then said the question was t il <-

i consumer's one, and they wanted the more I brilliant gas. He also urged that they should i get the coal that was under their own nose/, , and benefit themselves, their families, and all pertaining to them. Or Stringer said he failed to understand why in the Old Country they could sell gns at 2s sd, coal being übout the s-ime price. He believed the position of their works was owingl to their having been using a more expensive coal. Cr Coleman said the reason of the great difference in the price of gas here and at Home was due to the fact that in the Old. ' Country the waste products were all utilised; There, it was said, it would pay to distil coal, if they allowed the gas to escape. The Chairman said'that if the matter were one of less, importance be would not have attempted to speak, bat he considered this was a matter on which each Councillor should give a reason for his vote. He had not davoted so much time to his calculations as Cr Akersten, but he had worked out the question from the figures of the Town Olerk, and had arrived at nearly the same results as the Surveyor and Cr Webster. The Grey coal yielded 320 feet per ton less, and after allowing Cr Akersteh's calculations as "to the difference in wasta products, he made the Collingwood coal to be 5d a ton cheaper at the .prices tendered allowing for difference in light. He knew that the consumers generally preferred the Oollingwc'od coal gas, and said he had that day been assured by one of the largest drapery firms that this winter they had used fewer burners, and their gas had cost them considerably less, whilst they had had a better light. He instanced this- to show that,,they had really reduced the price to!the consumer, and he knew for himself that one light now served where formerly he used two. He, felt clear they would be doing i right by accepting the tender for Collingwood coal. Cr Trask said that put of over 900 gas consumers only 135 had signed the petition referred to. If" a majority had signed it it might have carried weight. The Chairman then put the amendment that Messrs J. H. Cock. & Co's tender be accepted, which on ak division resulted as follows : — Ayes : Crs Trask, Stringer, and Everett. Nces: Crs Webster, Aker3ten, Coleman, Harley, Scott, and the Chairman. Tha Chairman declared the amendment lost. Cr Akersten then moved an amendment that neither of the tenders be accepted, and that a deputation of this Council wait, upon Mr Burford and Messrs Cock & Co to a9k tbem whether they would agree each to supply half the coals required. He impressed on Crs that thee was no mistake in the figures he had given, and said he would stake his existence almost on their correctness. He urged that by doing as he proposed they would save £233, and have gas of only one candle power less on four days of the week. Cr J. Harley seconded the amendment. Cr Everett asked whether there would be any difficulty in using mixed coals. The Surveyor said there would, and there would be difficulty in ensuring that the coals were dry. They had to store gas on Friday for Saturday's use. Cr Akersten thought there should be no difficulty, and said the contractor should be made to supply dry coa'. Cr Trask said he would support Cr Alcersten's amendment, though that Cr had opposed his. He did so, however, with the desire of doing the best he could for the ratepayers. By this motion they would save £233, by his own they would have sa?ed £466. The question was then put, and the division was as follows :— Ayes: Crs Akersten, Trask, and Stringer. Noes: Crs Webster, Coleman, J. Harley, Everett, Scott, and the Chairman. The amendment was declared lost. Cr Webster in replying to his original motion, said bis facts were recorded in tho gasworks, not in the newspapers—he had every confidence that the figures he had given were correct. Certain Councillors had said that savings could bo made, but they had not said where. He had been surprised to hear Cr Everett say that the gas ought to be reduced in price. That Councillor said that some years ago whilst using West Coast coal they reduced the gas from 14s 2d to 9s 2d. As a faut there had been no reduction since 1885. Tueu Cr Everett forgot to tell them that a third of their gas was sold at an absolute loss, for the ga3 cost them (>s 7£d, and they sold for cooking at os lOd. If there was to ba any alteration it was a question whether they should increase this to coss prioe. He maintained'that there was an actual saving in the Collingwood coal gas, which could not be measured by a money value. During the time Grey coal was used, he frequently heard householders complain that their ornaments and gilding were damaged, and drapers complained^ that many of tbeir finer goods were destroyed. An important point was that it was impossible to cleanse the Grey gas of all its imparities and foulness, and owing to that it might affect health, as it certainly did eyesight, and the comfort of those who disliked a dim, miserable light. This might well be p' iced against inferior.by products. He complained that Cr Akersten calculated on the assumption that 2()00 tons would be used,.and as to the proceeds from residual products lie said why had not Cr Akersten taken the audited accounts for th?.ir value. The last year that Grey coal had been used £146 8s 7d was received from such products/whilst last year with the use of Collingwood Coal £155 12s Id had been received. Cr Everett haa corroborated a statement that the Grey coal gas was satisfactory iv Curistchurch, Dunedin, aad other places, but dozena of residents of those towns, of Wellington, and of Auckland, had told him that their gas was simply abominable, and that they would give anything if they could get a light like that they fhad in Nelson. He said it had been said that they had been well treated by the ooalcontractors in years past, but he reminded them that they were charged 26s a ton, and he said that at the same time the contractors were supplying private firms with five or six tons on better terms. But for the Collingwood coal coming into competition they would still have to pay 26s a ton. He then said he wished it to be left open whether they took round coal, nuts, or slack, for the manager of the Westport Gasworks told him he used Black at 10s a ton, and got as good a yield as from'round coal. Cr Everett corroborated this. Cr Webster said if they used slack, and got as good yield, the Collingwood ceal was beyond all question the oheupest. The motion was then put and carried. Ayes : Crs Webster, Coleman, Harley, Scott, and the Chairman; Noes: Crs Stringer, Trask, and Everett. The Council then adjourned.

£ s. d. £ s. d. 'ollingwood, per ton .. ..110 Srunner coal at same price 110 idd for extra coke .. 0 1 9 idd for extra tar .. 0 0 3££1 3 0£ )educt for lower illuminating power, Collingwood 23 candle, Brunner 20 candle, i&less •• ..029 'or extra cost of lime for purifying .. .. 0 0 3J 0 3 0J 1 0 .0