REPORT OF A HEARING 
BETORB THE 
COMMITTEE ON MANUFACTURES, 
ON THB 
PETITION OF THE BOSTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY THAT 
THE POLICY OF THE COMMONWEALTH IN RELA- 
TION TO CARBONIC OXIDE GAS BE 
MORE CLEARLY DEFINED. 
BOSTON: 
ALFRED MUDGE & SON, LAW PRINTERS, 24 FRANKLIN STREET. 
1885. PETITION. 
The chairman read the following petition :- 
To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives, in General 
Court assembled: 
The undersigned respectfully petition that such changes may be made in 
Chap. 61, Sect. 14, of the Massachusetts Public Statutes as shall more dis- 
tinctly define the policy of the Commonwealth relative to carbonic oxide 
as an impurity in gas. 
THE BOSTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY. 
By W. W. Greenough, Treasr. 
Boston, Feb. 4, 1885. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHARLES P. GREENOUGH, ESQ., 
COUNSEL FOR THE BOSTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY. 
March 17, 1885. 
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : - The purpose of the petition which 
has just been read to you is, that the Legislature should define the policy 
of the State with regard to the quality of gas to be furnished by the gas 
companies in this State. This is a question which, of course, interests 
consumers of gas fully as much as it does the gas companies. A matter 
of such importance, which affects the health and even the lives of the 
community, is one which certainly should be carefully considered. 
The reason why the petition was brought at this time was this: There 
are two other measures affecting the prosperity of the gas industry in this 
State to be decided at this session of the Legislature. These are, first, a 
petition brought by the city of Boston for the appointment of a gas com- 
mission ; second, the petitions of two competing companies in Boston, 
asking for an increase of their capital stock to the amount of seven and a 
half million dollars. It therefore seemed a proper time to file the petition 
which is now before you, in order to have all the questions relating to the 
gas industry in this State considered and determined by the Legislature at 
one time. Before proceeding to the discussion of the question raised by the 
petition before you, I think you will pardon me, gentlemen, if I say a few 
words in regard to the other two matters pending before the House, because 
they are all intimately connected, and all of so much importance. 
In the first place, what constitutes the gas industry, so called, in this State ? 
It comprises some sixty-five or sixty-six gas companies, which have been 
organized from time to time, with a capital of about twelve millions of dol- 
lars, of which ninety-two and a half per cent is owned by citizens of Mas- 
sachusetts, and seven and one half per cent only is held by people who 
live outside of the State. All of that capital was paid in, so far as I know, 
without a single exception. The stockholders, throughout the State, are 
among the best citizens of the Commonwealth. I will only refer as 
instances to Ex?Gov. Washburn, who is a stockholder in the Greenfield 
Gas Company, and to Ex-Gov. Gaston, whois a stockholder in the Roxbury 
Gas Company. It is held very generally as an investment by trustees and 
widows and persons living on small incomes, and is not a speculative stock. 4 
It is therefore the duty of you, gentlemen, who are sitting here, to protect 
both the interest of the consumers of gas, and the holders of stock of the 
gas companies in this State, -although the interest of the consumer and 
the gas company is practically the same, - to consid r and decide these 
important questions, and to see that by a proper enforcement of the laws 
of this State, the consumer gets two things: first, that his gas shall be 
furnished him as cheaply as possible consistently with a proper payment of 
interest on the capital invested; and, secondly, that the article which is 
furnished him shall be as little dangerous to life and health as is possible. 
Consider, first, the petition for the appointment of a gas commission, which 
is pending before the Committee on Public Service. It would have been 
better if all these three matters could have been referred to this com- 
mittee, or to the same committee, because all being connected together, 
they could have been more intelligently considered and disposed of by one 
committee. But over that we had no control; and these various petitions 
have been sent to three different committees. The proposed bill for the 
gas commission provides that a commission of three gentlemen, who shall 
have no interest whatever in any gas company or gas stock, nor shall be in 
any way connected with any business relating to the manufacture and 
distribution of gas, shall be appointed by the governor of this State, and 
that to these gentlemen, with similar powers to those held by the railroad 
commissioners, all the questions relating to the manufacture, the quality, or 
the price of gas, together with the question of the expediency of competition 
in gas manufacture, should be referred and by them settled. The manufacture 
of gas is, of course, like any other great industry, a complicated and difficult 
one for any gentlemen to understand in a short time, or after a few days 
study. It is impossible for a committee of the Legislature, or for a board of 
aidermen of a city to properly comprehend, in the short time they have to give 
to the matter, all the minutiae and details of a great business like the gas 
industry. The gas companies therefore in this State have joined with the 
city of Boston in its petition, and desire that a gas commission should be 
appointed ; that three men, who are disinterested and able, should be paid 
for devoting their time and energy to the study of the question. It has 
been decided by the Supreme Court of this State that the gas industry is a 
private business ; that gas companies are not bound to furnish gas to people 
if they do not want to ; that they can regulate their own charge for gas, 
and they are now no more under the control of the State government than 
any other private manufacturers or corporations. They, however, recognize 
the fact that the nature of their business is essentially different from that 
of any othei- manufacturer, or any other private industry in the State, in 5 
that they deal directly with the community, and supply them with a neces- 
sary of life. Gas has ceased to be a luxury. In all the large cities and towns 
gas must be used ; there is no other cheap method of lighting the streets, 
alley-ways, and kitchens ; it is used practically in every house in Boston, in 
nearly every house in all the smaller cities, and in nearly all the houses in 
the larger towns in the State. The gas companies also recognize the fact 
that a disinterested tribunal, to which people can go with their complaints, 
will be of value both to them and to the community. There will always 
be complaints in the manufacture and distribution of a staple article, which 
is invisible in itself and measured by an instrument, the operation of which 
is not easily understood, especially when such staple is sold by a monopoly. 
The gas companies have been given certain privileges by the State and 
among others that of using the streets of the cities or towns where they are 
situated without paying for the privilege. In return for these they feel that 
they are under the obligation of providing gas of a good quality and at a fair 
price, and I believe the gas companies in this State have generally performed 
their duty in this respect. If they should neglect to perform this duty, the 
commissioners proposed can enforce it. They are given by the proposed 
bill very great powers over the gas companies, the power to examine their 
books, to fix the proper price for gas, and to make all proper regulations 
and orders with regard to the conduct of their business. 
The fact that the gas companies do not oppose the bill is strong proof that 
they are doing their duty by their customers. 
Nor do the gas companies admit that there is a demand for a commis- 
sion because there is any great cause for complaint. It is advocated as a 
measure of prevention rather than of cure. And this is shown by a com- 
parison of the prices at which gas is sold in this State with the prices at 
which it is sold in other places in this country. It is well known that the 
price of gas depends in very large measure on the amount of gas sold, and 
that with a very slight increase in the expense at which you can make 250,- 
000 cubic feet of gas, you can make 500,000 feet. But if you compare 
the prices at which gas is sold in the various towns in this State, - for in- 
stance, in Boston, Lowell, Lawrence, Lynn, New Bedford, and South 
Boston ; I take those places merely as specimens, - and compare them with 
the prices at which gas is sold in the large cities of this country, like New 
York, Brooklyn, Albany, New Orleans, St. Louis, San Francisco, you 
will find that in almost every case gas is actually sold cheaper in small 
places in this State, like Haverhill or New Bedford, than it is in great 
cities like St. Louis and New York. This fact certainly tends to show, 6 
first, that the gas companies in this State have been doing their business 
honorably, fairly, and ably; and, second, that the State, and the com- 
munity generally, recognizing this fact, have, so far, protected the com- 
panies and the interests of its own citizens from what might be called 
foreign invasion. 
And this brings me to the second question now pending before the Legis- 
lature, which involves the question of competition in gas manufacture. 
There are pending here petitions from two competing companies, who both 
desire to dig up the streets and supply gas in the city of Boston. The 
stock of these companies is subscribed almost entirely by citizens from 
other States. In one company, the Consumers' Gas Co., there are three 
Boston men who have subscribed for twenty shares apiece; in all, sixty 
shares of the capital stock of $500,000, which I believe has been paid in. 
None of the capital of the other company, the Bay State Gas Company, 
has yet been paid in, and all the shares but forty-five are subscribed for by 
one gentleman, Mr. Addicks, of Philadelphia. 
The State has never favored competition in gas. I am well aware that 
the very sound of the word " competition " is alluring. Such expressions 
as the familiar one, " competition is the life of trade," at once strike the 
imagination, and have their effect. It is difficult to make people understand 
why competition in gas is not as beneficial to the community as competition 
in any other business. But I think when you read the history of what has 
been done in other cities, and reason upon it, you will be satisfied that it is 
not so. Take, for instance, the proposed competition in the city of Boston. 
Why will not competition there reduce the price of gas ? I will answer that 
question by asking who is to pay the interest on the investment of the 
additional seven millions and a half dollars which is to be invested in the 
business in Boston ? Of course, these other States who con- 
stitute the new gas companies - and they say so very frankly - do not 
come here for any philanthropic purpose. 
They come here to make an investment of their money, and get a return 
from it. Who is to pay the interest on that money, and the taxes to the 
city and State? Somebody is going to pay it. The interest at six per 
cent on that amount would be $450,000 ; and at ten per cent, $750,000 ; and 
the taxes would be over $100,000 besides. From whom is this $1,000,000 
annually to be taken ? It is not to be taken from the gas companies. It 
must therefore be taken from the consumers of gas, and from them only. 
And the reason why competition does not succeed in the gas business is that 
the number of consumers is limited. Where the consumers are limited, it 
is cheaper for them to pay interest on one capital than on two. Suppose 7 
that one of those great manufactories in Lowell could only sell its products 
to the inhabitants of that city, and the inhabitants could buy nowhere 
else, would there be more than one cotton factory there to-day? A gas 
company is obliged to sell all its products in a place where it is doing 
business. Now, would anybody say for a moment that it would be profit- 
able to build a parallel railroad from Boston to Worcester, side by side with 
the present railroad between these places? The Boston Gas Light Com- 
pany, which supplies Boston proper, pays about eighty thousand dollars in 
taxes to the city of Boston ; it also pays ten per cent dividend on its capital 
stock, which is two and a half million dollars. They get that money, of 
course, from the consumers of gas, by adding it to the total cost of the 
gas, which is made up of practically two elements: first, the cost of the 
gas in the holder, as it is called, - the cost of the actual manufacture 
of the gas, which includes the labor at the works, the cost of the 
material, deducting therefrom the receipts from the sale of the residuals; 
the second element is the cost of distribution, a somewhat larger sum than 
the cost of manufacture, which includes the cost of the pipes, the salaries 
of officers, and all the other expenses required to carry the gas from the gas 
works to the place of consumption. There are other small elements, such 
as depreciation of material, sums paid for damages from explosions, and allow- 
ance for the gas which is lost. This last item is sometimes a large one, as 
generally ten per cent of the gas manufactured cannot be accounted for. 
It is lost; it escapes through the pipes into the streets ; it condenses in the 
pipes, or goes through the meter without being measured. In some cases 
a large proportion cannot be accounted for. I see from the testimony offered 
at the investigation going on in New York, that in one year, one of the 
gas companies in New York lost eighteen and one half per cent of the 
gas manufactured by it. These items make up the cost of gas ; and the price at 
which gas is sold is fixed by adding to them the amount which will be 
required to pay a dividend on the capital stock. That amount in Boston 
is somewhere about twenty-eight cents per thousand cubic feet, and the 
price of gas sold in Boston represents the cost of manufacture and distribu- 
tion, with twenty-eight cents added to pay interest on the capital. 
Mr. Hallett.-How much is the interest? I understand you to say 
ten per cent? 
Mr. Greenough. - Ten per cent. If we sold one thousand millions cubic 
feet, the interest would be just twenty-five cents, ten percent of $2,500,000. 
Q. That ten per cent comes out of the consumer? A. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Hallett. - Now, if there was another company the price would be 
put down, so that the ten per cent could be divided up, and the consumer 8 
would get the benefit of five per cent, and the stockholder get five per cent, 
and that would be a good deal better than most companies are doing at the 
present time with investments? A. Yes, sir; but if two companies are 
each getting five per cent on their capital, how is the consumer any better 
off than he is now when he is paying ten per cent on one capital. 
We are not discussing the question whether,ten per cent interest is a 
proper dividend or not. That is the rate of interest which has been fixed 
by the government in England, after a long series of disputes about the 
question. But the rate of interest does not affect the question. Suppose 
the gas company pays six, eight, or any other amount per cent, you have 
still got to pay dividends upon two capitals, while now you pay only upon 
one. That, however, is one of the questions which the gas commission can 
be asked to determine. If the commission say the price of gas is too 
high in Boston and elsewhere, and that the gas companies shall receive 
only five per cent on their investment, the price can be reduced ; and then, 
it seems to me, the consumer will save the other five per cent, which you 
think now you would save by the introduction of a competing company, 
with additional capital? Is not that so, Mr. Hallett? 
Q. Perhaps I owe the gentleman an apology. I do not wish to inter- 
rupt you, but it struck me when you spoke about the dividend you were 
paying, that it would be a benefit to the consumer to have a company to 
compete with the present company, so that the rate should be put down, and 
the benefit be derived by the consumer, instead of it going to the accouut 
of the stockholders, A. But under your plan the other half would go to 
the stockholders of the other company. Suppose we pay five per cent, and 
another company pays five per cent; those two five per cent dividends make 
ten per cent, and the consumer does not get any reduction whatever. In- 
vest in Boston all this capital, upon which the consumer must pay some 
interest, whether at the rate of five, six, or ten per cent, it is the consumer 
who has got to pay the interest on the additional capital. What is 
the history of competition in other cities, and what can we learn from it? 
Why, gentlemen, there has been appointed in New York, within the last 
few months, what I think Mr. Hallett would call a vigilance committee of 
gas consumers. There are eight gas companies in New York City alone. 
The consumers have tried the benefits of competition until they are paying 
interest on a capital of fifty millions of dollars. Not satisfied with the 
blessings of competition, this vigilance committee secured the appointment 
by the Legislature of an investigating committee which has been examining 
the officials and the books of the gas companies in New York. They are 
also petitioning the Legislature for the appointment of a gas commission. 9 
Competition began and was encouraged in London until they had thirteen 
companies competing in that city, the pipes of which were laid in the 
streets. The nuisance at last became unbearable. Every time there was a 
leak in the gas pipes in the streets it was almost impossible to tell from 
whose pipe the gas escaped. One company after another dug up the streets, 
and if they found it was not from one of their pipes, they would decline to 
repair the leak, and leave the gas escaping. Finally Parliament interfered, 
and said, "You shall not compete any longer"; the companies were 
obliged to combine, and the rate of dividends was fixed at ten per cent. 
The result is that gas is sold to-day in London for seventy cents a thousand 
feet. 
The city of New York is a good instance of the folly of competition. Its 
streets are generally straight, there is very little made land, the houses are 
all occupied. From the lower end of the city up to the Park there is hardly 
a vacant lot. There they have tried the system of competition over and 
over again. The New York Gas Company was the first company organ- 
ized, and it supplied the whole city. The people were dissatisfied with the 
price it charged for gas, and thought they could remedy the trouble by com- 
petition ; and another company, the Manhattan, was organized. That com- 
pany soon bought a district from the old company, and sold gas without 
competition, and the consumers had to pay interest on the two capitals. 
Again and again new companies were chartered to compete with the exist- 
ing companies, until there are now eight companies in operation. One 
company after another came in, each promising cheaper gas, and lately six 
of them have combined in one huge monopoly, with a capital of forty mill- 
ions of dollars. There are two other companies which have not yet come 
into the combination, and they have a capital of eight millions of dollars. 
The result is, that in New York the consumers are paying interest on 
nearly fifty millions of dollars invested capital, while it is perfectly well 
settled that one gas company with a capital of fifteen or twenty millions 
could supply the city perfectly well, and sell gas cheaper. The difference 
between the interest on fifteen millions and on fifty millions anybody can 
easily calculate, and it constitutes an unnecessary annual tax on the people 
of New York City. What will be the practical results of competition in 
Boston ? When the Bay State Gas Company has completed its works, and 
begins to sell gas in Boston, what inducement can they offer to the custom- 
ers of the present company to take the new gas? That inducement will be, 
of course, to sell its gas at a lower price. The Boston Gas Light Company 
will not, if it can help it, lose its customers, and they will reduce the price 10 
of their gas. The new company will then be obliged to still further reduce 
its price, and the old company will follow suit. Under similar circum- 
stances, in other cities, gas has actually been given away by the companies, 
or sold at nominal prices to induce customers to take gas. This sounds 
very alluring. It is very pleasant to get gas for nothing. But a little 
reflection will show you that the gas companies are not going to sell gas 
very long for such prices; because they are not charitable institutions, and 
not organized for that object. After a while the companies have every- 
where said, " Why should we sell gas to people for twelve and a half cents ; 
we are losing a dollar on each thousand feet that we sell? That is not busi- 
ness. It is simpler and easier to combine, and fix upon a fair price, and 
leave each other alone." That has been done in every case of competition, 
gentlemen. The companies are not going to sell gas for less than it costs to 
make it. Then, of course, the companies put the price of gas up again, 
and get back what they have lost during the competition. 
Q. (by Mr. Hallett). Yes, but we want a company that won't com- 
bine and consolidate. A. I don't know where you can find one. 
Q. In any other business you would not say it is not an advantage to 
the consumer to have competition ? A. In almost every other business, 
except that of distributing gas and water, it may be a benefit to have com- 
petition. The reason why the rule does not apply to those industries is, 
as I said, because there are only a limited number of customers. You have 
only so many people to sell to, whatever price you ask for your gas or 
water. It is somewhat so in the case of a milk route. A man, we will 
say, has a hundred customers on a milk route, and that is all he has. If 
another milk man comes in and competes, he has to buy another set of 
wagons, and pay for another set of employes; he adds another capital to 
the capital invested by the original milk man, and yet there are only a hun- 
dred customers for the two men, and each supplies fifty. One man withone 
capital could do the business better and cheaper on one capital than two. 
Q. (by Mr. Hallett) . That is not a parallel case, because the consum- 
ers of gas are increasing all the time, and the population is increasing all 
the time. A. No, sir ; but we are supplying all the houses that are built 
now. The population in those houses does not increase. The increase in 
population is in the suburbs. 
Q. (by Mr. Crane) . Suppose the gas company waters its stock with- 
out paying any money into it; don't you think it is a proper thing that the 
people should have competition in that town ? A. Competition is not the 
remedy in that case. The proper remedy is such a government supervision 
as will compel the gas company to charge a fair price upon capital actually 11 
invested. The result of competition in New York is that the gas com- 
panies have increased their capital to fifty millions of dollars, most of which 
was not paid in. There are, in my opinion, only two successful remedies 
to extortion on the part of gas companies, - either a strict government 
supervision, or the manufacture of gas by the cities and towns themselves. 
The latter has been tried in Philadelphia without much success, and the 
Boston Gas Light Company sells gas to-day cheaper than they do in 
Philadelphia. 
The real test of the merits of competition is the price at which the con- 
sumer gets his gas. The price of gas is cheaper in Boston where there is 
no competition, than it is in New York, Baltimore, or Brooklyn, where they 
have had competition. 
The result of competition in every place in which it has been tried has 
always been a combination of the competing companies; that will be the 
result when another company is introduced into Boston. The time when two 
competing companies will combine can be almost calculated from an almanac. 
It is perfectly natural that they should combine. So far as experience 
has shown anything, it has shown conclusively that competing companies 
always have, always will, and always must combine ; and I have no doubt 
they will combine in Boston. There have been of course a large number of 
gas companies who desired to come into Boston and compete with the Bos- 
ton Gas Light Company, and there have been a number of hearings on the 
subject before the Board of Aidermen. There was one in 1866, and another 
in 1874, when a gas company proposed to make gas from naphtha. In 1875, 
Mayor Cobb, a man whom we all know and respect, appointed a commission, 
consisting of Charles F. Choate, now president of the Old Colony Railroad 
Company, John Felt Osgood, a well-known merchant of the city, and Prof. 
Wood, the well-known chemist at Harvard College, to examine the whole 
subject of gas manufacture in this country, and they spent a year and a 
half in going over the country and examining the various processes for the 
manufacture of gas, and the results of competition. They made an elabo- 
rate report to the city of Boston, in 1876, in which they reached the conclu- 
sion that the only remedies for exorbitant charges in the price of gas were 
either for the city to make gas themselves, or for the appointment of a gas 
commission, and they especially recommended the city of Boston to apply 
for such a commission. They reported that competition had been shown by 
its results to have been a failure everywhere. 
I am sorry to have taken up so much of your time, gentlemen ; but it seems 
to me that both of these subjects are directly connected with the petition now 
before the committee. The Boston Gas Light Company asks this Legislature 12 
to decide the kind of gas which it is desirable and proper for the community 
to use. It is for you to determine what kind of gas you wish to use in your 
houses, bedrooms, and places of business. The new company, the Con- 
sumers' Gas Company, who came before the Board of Aidermen of the city 
of Boston last year, asked permission to dig up the streets solely on the 
ground that they would sell to the citizens water gas, which they described 
as a new, bright, and beautiful gas, safer, better, and cheaper than the old 
coal gas, and one which it was for the interest of the community to adopt. 
We do not think so. We think it has certain advantages and disadvanta- 
ges, to which I would call your attention ; but what we want this Legisla- 
ture to do is to settle the question whether the people of this Commonwealth 
shall have water gas or not. It is admitted that we can make water gas 
cheaper than any other gas company can, and if the Legislature say that 
there is no objection to the gas, why, we will make it cheaper than anybody 
else. If the Legislature of this State considers water gas objectionable and 
dangerous, then it is incumbent upon it to make the laws relating to the dis- 
tribution of impure gas stronger. 
The statute of this Commonwealth, as it now stands, inflicts a penalty of 
one hundred dollars upon any gas company which distributes gas containing 
more than ten per cent of carbonic oxide ; but it also contains the provision 
that the penalty shall not be incurred until after three consecutive inspec- 
tions ; and provides that only one inspection shall be made each week. 
The utmost penalty of making water gas in this State, if the statute is en- 
forced, is therefore the payment of about one hundred dollars a month. 
Now you can see at once, gentlemen, that if the penalty is enforced, it 
amounts to an additional tax of only one hundred dollars a month. As the 
Boston Gas Light Company now pays $80,000 taxes annually to the city of 
Boston, an additional tax of $1,200 a year would be immaterial. If you 
conclude, therefore, that water gas is not a proper gas to be distributed in 
this State, then you must make the law stronger; for if you do not, 
water gas will be made all over the State, and it will be made just as it is 
made in Athol to-day, for the sole purpose of keeping out another com- 
peting water-gas company. At the hearing before the Board of Aidermen 
last year, Mr. Morse, counsel for the Consumers' Gas Company, said the 
law would be repealed this winter. 
Q. (by Mr. Ames). Please explain that statement in regard to the 
Athol Gas Company. A. I said that they were making water gas in 
order to prevent another water-gas from coming into Athol, to 
compete with them. If, for instance, we should make water gas in the 
city of Boston, no water gas company could come in to compete with us, 13 
as there would be no inducement for any customer to change from one 
water-gas company to another. The in my opinion, must do 
one of two things. If they want to keep out water gas from the State, they 
must make the law stronger. If they let the law stand as it is now, they 
will find that more than half the gas companies in the State will make water 
gas, before another Legislature meets, in order to protect themselves from 
competition. 
I should like to ask your attention, for a few minutes, to the' differences 
between water gas and coal gas. My preferences are, of course, for coal 
gas ; but I think I can state the matter fairly, and state to you the advan- 
tages and disadvantages of the two gases. They are very similar in some 
things and dissimilar in others. The name of water gas in itself has a 
delightfully cheap sound. Water is cheap, one thinks, although, to be sure, 
water is not very cheap just now in Boston. It has been said that the very 
name of water gas has been worth millions of dollars to the inventors. It 
is a very old discovery. It was discovered about one hundred and fifty 
years ago. Water gas is made, in brief, by passing a quantity of steam over 
incandescent anthracite coal, which heats the steam, so that its elements 
are disintegrated. These elements combine with portions of the coal at the 
time it passes through the coal. It partially burns the coal, and takes 
some ingredients out of it, and the illuminating power of the gas is added 
by dropping naphtha from the top of the machinery into the steam, in which 
it is separated into its component parts. It then goes through various pro- 
cesses of purification, as coal gas does. 
On the other hand, coal gas is made by roasting or baking coal in an oven ; 
it is stewed out of the coal and leaves coke, which is, of course, sold and 
used. The main difference in the two gases is in the quantity of carbonic 
oxide which they contain. The other elements of gas, marsh gas and hy- 
drogen, as far as I have been able to learn, are of no great consequence; they 
are not poisonous. As you heard Prof. Sedgwick testify, they are not power- 
ful enough to kill a rabbit after twenty-four hours. As far as I have been 
able to learn, after a careful examination, the two gases are equally explo- 
sive, and they do not make the air of a room essentially different after 
burning. 
The advantages of water gas are, that it gives a whiter light. The water 
gas made in New York City- which is, by the way, the only water gas 
that is good for anything, in my opinion - is a brighter light than the gas 
in Boston. We admit that at once, and if that is the only question to be 
considered, we can furnish the citzens of Boston a water gas which is 14 
brighter than the coal gas now furnished in Boston. The illuminants in 
the gas are the parts that give the light; the rest of the gas merely car- 
riesjit along. The illuminants in water gas are just the same as in coal gas, 
only there is a larger proportion of them. 
['* Q. (by Mr. Hallett). I thought this carbonic oxide was an illuminant 
in water gas, but not to the same extent as in coal gas ? A. Carbonic 
oxide is not an illuminant. You will remember that Mr. Flannery testified 
on that point. The only claim that has been made for it is that it made 
the gas brighter by a more complete combustion of the carbon in the gas. 
Q. (by the Chairman) ." I understand that carbonic oxide is the heating 
property in the gas? A. Yes, sir; to some extent. 
Q. But isn't it more heating than hydrogen ? A. No, sir. I think 
that Mr. Hinman, who has examined this question with great thoroughness, 
has referred in his report to this point. But I think it is fair to say that 
the elements in water gas, with the exception of carbonic oxide, are practi- 
cally the same as those of coal gas in their effects on human life. 
Q. (by Mr. Hallett). Hydrogen is an illuminant in coal gas, surely? 
A. No, sir. The-illuminants are ethyline, bituline, and olefiant gas. I am 
not enough of a chemist to know what these gases are exactly ; but they are 
the elements of gas which give all the light. If you attempted to burn those 
gases by themselves, you could not use them satisfactorily. In water gas 
the vehicle to carry them in consists of carbonic oxide, hydrogen, and 
marsh gas; but the illuminants themselves are what give the light. The 
marsh gas and carbonic oxide give no light at all. 
The advantage of water gas made by the process used in New York, 
therefore, is that it is brighter than the gas here. Water gas, in most of the 
other cities of the country, is no brighter than coal gas in Boston. Gas is 
measured by its candle-power, and if you will look in Mr. Hinman's report 
for this year, you will see that he measured the candle-power of a number 
of the water gases sold in various parts of the country, in Rochester, 
Toronto, Chicago, St. Louis, and so on, and in Athol; and he reports 
that the candle-pQwer (that is, light-giving power) of these gases is about 
the same as of the gas in Boston. But the water gas in New York City is 
a better gas than we get here, as far as the light is concerned. We admit 
that at once. It is a bright and very handsome light. 
The question to be decided is whether it would be better for the citizens 
of Boston to adopt the New York gas or to keep the coal gas. This same 
question came up nearly ten years ago, and the Board of Aidermen then 
decided against the change. The gas companies in this State have had 
ample opportunity before the present law was enacted to adopt water gas. 15 
They were invited early and often to adopt water gas and make it here. 
They investigated the subject then just as carefully as they could, and made 
up their minds that they did not want to make water gas. The reasons 
they gave then for not making it are the same reasons they give to-day. 
They said then, and they say to-day, that it is no cheaper than coal gas. 
They say also, that as the material from which it is made is naphtha, and as 
the supply of naphtha is entirely under the control of the Standard Oil Com- 
pany, they objected then, and still object, to having a great industry in this 
State put under the control of a corporation in another State. Thirdly, and 
chiefly, they said then they were afraid it was a more dangerous gas; 
they say now they are sure it is. Lastly, they objected to it because in 
the manufacture of water gas there are no residuals, there was nothing left 
over. 
Q. (by Mr. Hallett). Is there anything left from the manufacture of 
coal gas besides coke? A. Coke, coal tar, and ammonia. The value of 
these residuals depends entirely upon the condition of the business interests 
in the country. In England the residuals pay nearly all the dividends of 
the coal-gas companies. 
Q. Are there any residuals from water gas? A. No, sir; there are 
none at all. This very year, on account of the depression in business, and 
in consequence of the fact that the Standard Oil Company has been trying 
to effect a corner in coal tar, the residuals are less in value to-day than they 
usually are. We could probably manufacture to-day water gas five cents 
per thousand feet cheaper than we can make coal gas, on that account. Next 
year, if business improves, and the residuals increase in price, we could 
make coal gas cheaper than we could make water gas. There are some 
other slight objections to water gas, in that the gas pipes get sticky, and in 
that naphtha itself is a very difficult thing to handle. If we should make water 
gas in Boston, we should have to keep in store about fifty thousand barrels 
of naphtha, which is a large amount. There have been several explosions 
of naphtha at water-gas works, and unless we see great additional advan- 
tages, we do not want to run that additional risk in the manufacture of 
water gas. 
The main question of course is, Is water gas really more dangerous than 
coal gas ? On that point there has been a battle raging for several years. 
Water gas was used in France some thirty years ago. The further use of 
it was prohibited in Paris, after an examination by a council of eminent 
chemists, appointed by the Emperor Napoleon. The eight companies which 
then supplied Paris were ordered to consolidate into one company, and 
were ordered to make only coal gas. It has never been popular in Europe, 16 
and there is not a water-gas company in England or France to-day that I 
know of. The first company offering to make pure water gas in Massachu- 
setts came in 1877. A company came on from New York and proposed to 
make water gas in Boston. The Board of Aidermen, however, referring to 
the report of the commissioners appointed by Mayor Cobb, in relation to the 
objectionable character of water gas, declined to allow the company to dig up 
the streets, and the report of the committee of the Board giving the petition- 
ers leave to withdraw gave it as their principal reason for refusing them that 
permission, that the gas was too dangerous, and they did not want to have 
it made in Boston. 
The gas companies also noticed from time to time that whenever water 
gas was introduced into a city or town, there was an increase in the num- 
ber of deaths. This fact became so noticeable that attention was directed 
to it, and the gas companies began to investigate the matter more thor- 
oughly, and they are now satisfied on that point. In 1884, a petition was 
offered to the Legislature by the American Gas and Fuel Company of 
New York, asking that the law limiting the amount of carbonic oxide in gas 
to ten per cent might be repealed, for the purpose of allowing them to sell 
their patents to the gas companies here. Their counsel stated at the hear- 
ing that they had no desire to compete with the coal-gas companies, but the 
petitioners only wished to be able to sell the right to use their patents, and 
that at that time there were a number of gas companies here which were desir- 
ous of purchasing the right to use these patents. All the coal-gas companies 
in the State thereupon united in a protest, which I presented to the commit- 
tee, in which they stated that they did not want the patents, that they had 
known of them for ten years, that they did not believe water gas was any 
cheaper, that they believed it was more dangerous than coal gas, and, as it 
had been represented to the committee that they were desirous of procur- 
ing the patents, they wished to say distinctly that it was not the fact. 
There was a long hearing on the subject, as you have heard. 
Mr. Bosworth, of your committee, was, I believe, one of the sufferers; he 
was there, I remember, during the whole of it. There was one striking 
feature of that hearing. A large number of scientific men appeared, who 
testified in various ways. Some of them testified that water gas was in 
their opinion more dangerous than coal gas, others testified that it was 
not so dangerous. All the chemists of this State who appeared at that 
hearing, however, testified that in their opinion water gas was too danger- 
ous a gas to be distributed in this Commonwealth. 
Several of the gentlemen from other States, who appeared here at the 
request of the petitioners, testified that carbonic oxide in gas was a dan- 17 
gerous element, but on the whole they thought that in practical use one gas 
would not be more dangerous than another, because water gas, being made 
to burn, and not to breathe, would not be more dangerous than coal 
gas. Only one gentleman had the effrontery to say that carbonic oxide 
was not a dangerous element in illuminating gas. 
It was a curious fact that of all these gentlemen, some of whom had 
been giving their opinions for years, not a single one had ever 
thought of trying the experiment which Profs. Nichols and Sedgwick tried. 
It appeared at that hearing, and I believe it is a fact, that nowhere in the 
country has there been such an examination made as was made here under 
the direction of our Board of Health. Mr. Hinman, the gas inspector, who 
is a very able chemist, while that hearing was going on thought that he 
would try some experiments himself. He thereupon made some experi- 
ments upon animals, similar to, but not on so large a scale as, those made by 
the gentlemen who have testified before you at this hearing. He reached 
the same result, however, that water gas would kill in a short time, and coal 
gas would kill in a long time. But not a single one of the gentlemen who 
appeared at the hearing last year, and not a single Board of Health in this 
country, have ever made experiments such as have been made by the 
Board of Health here. 
I have taken the trouble myself to write to the different State Boards of 
Health in the country. Two of them, one in Toronto and the other in 
San Francisco, did not even know that water gas was being made in their 
cities, and not a single one of the Boards of Health, so far as I can learn, 
have really made any thorough investigation of the subject. Men of 
eminence in their profession, like Prof. Silliman, of New Haven, who has 
just died, and Prof. Morton, were strongly of the opinion that water gas 
was the more dangerous gas. Prof. Chandler, of New York, who testified 
last year, expressed the opinion that on the whole there was not much differ- 
ence in the gases, but none of them made any experiments, and their opin- 
ions were valuable as opinions, but they do not have the convincing force 
of the opinions expressed to you by Profs. Nichols and Sedgwick, who have 
actually tried the gases themselves on living creatures. I do not propose 
now to add any evidence upon the subject. Nothing can be added which 
will help you in making up your minds. When it appears that the State 
Board of Health, established by this State and paid by this State, impar- 
tial and scientific men, who have made this examination of their own free 
will, without a request from anybody, and solely for the purpose of ascer- 
taining the effect of these gases upon the public health, make a report like 
that now presented to you, advising that water gas should not be allowed to 18 
be made and distributed in this State, I do not think that any evidence 
that could be produced here, or the opinions of any chemist in the country, 
however eminent, would be as satisfactory or as conclusive as the evidence 
of these gentlemen. 
The only experiment which I have known to be made at all similar to those 
made here, has been made in New York City, and that is the experiment 
on the poor and ignorant citizens of the city of New York. I have here 
the reports of the Health Officer of the city of New York of the number of 
deaths from gas in New York City for the years 1883 and 1884. Whether 
from indifference or ignorance, the list he sent me was simply a list of the 
places where deaths from gas occurred during those years, without giving 
me either the names of the persons, the dates of their deaths, or the kind 
of gas which caused their deaths. Those details I have ascertained else- 
where, and I will furnish you with a list of the people in New York who 
have died during the last two years from the inhalation of illuminating gas, 
and'their names, and the kind of gas they died from. Remember, gentle- 
men, that not quite one half the gas furnished to the consumers in New 
York is water gas ; and in spite of the greatly advertised excellence, beauty, 
and brilliancy of this kind of gas, more than one half the people in New 
York prefer and buy coal gas at the same price to-day. 
Moreover, I have ascertained that the deaths in New York, beginning in 
1880, from water gas alone, were twelve ; in 1881, nineteen ; in 1882, twenty- 
three ; in 1883, seventeen ; and there were three deaths besides these, 
whether from water gas or coal gas I have not yet been able to find out; 
in 1884, eighteen, and so far in 1885 there have been seven or eight. In 
those'five years there have been ninety-five deaths that we have been able 
to trace to water gas. 
Q. (by Mr. Hallett). Have you made any effort to see how many have 
died from coal gas? A. Yes, sir. In 1880 there was one death from 
coal gas; in 1881, three; in 1882, two; in 1883 Ido not know whether 
the three I have referred to were from coal or water gas, but if from coal 
gas there were no others ; in 1884, two, one of which was a case of suicide, 
where the man had tried almost everything else, and finally shut himself 
up in a room, closed the windows, and turned on the gas. 
Q. (by Mr. Dillaway). Why didn't he take water gas? A. Water 
gas was not sold in that district. 
In those five years, therefore, instead of ninety-five deaths from water 
gas, you have only eight or nine from coal gas. Now, gentlemen, these 
figures mean something. 
Q. (by Mr. Boswtorth). How did you get those figures, from the hos- 19 
pital folks? A. I got the names of the places where the death ensued 
from the Health Office ; and when the victim was taken to the hospitals, the 
cause of death or sickness from the hospital records. 
Q. The reason I asked you was because we went there to find out last 
year, and they told us they could not tell us whether it was water or coal 
gas. A. They did not know the difference at the hospitals, and do not 
record the kind of gas from which the patient is injured. 
Q. Then how did you get the figures? A. Because in each case the 
locality where the accident occurred is recorded, and it is well known that 
every house in all the streets below Grand Street in New York is supplied 
with water gas only. The knowledge of that fact simplified the examination 
at once. If the place where the accident occurred was below Grand Street, 
it was positively known at once that the injury was caused from water gas, 
as no other was used. Then 1 employed a doctor in New York to go to 
the other places above Grand Street and find out exactly what gas was used 
in those houses, and the only places now left in doubt are those on streets 
above Grand Street, where the occupants either could not or would not 
tell him what gas they used. There are only four or five of these cases. 
So I have been able to tell pretty exactly what gas was the cause of these 
accidents. 
These deaths, of course, were generally reported in the daily papers. 
You will remember that Dr. Abbott spoke of seeing and talking with one of 
the porters at one of the hotels. I have cut out and preserved occasionally 
such items in the papers. Here is one from the New York Tribune, of 
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 1884: - 
"Lawrence Sullivan, a porter at the Van Dyke House, located in the 
Bowery, New York City, who has saved fifty persons from death by suffo- 
cation in that hotel, during the past eight years, at 9 a. m., on the morn- 
ing of January 8th, detected the odor of escaping gas, which he traced to 
room number 50. Conrad Kuhn, proprietor of a beer saloon at Tenth 
Avenue and 169th Street, had gone to sleep in that room at a late hour of 
the previous night; when the porter forced an entrance into the room Kuhn 
was found in a state of insensibility, the gas having been blown out. He 
was taken to the New York Hospital, where it was said recovery would 
probably ensue." 
From these extracts from the newspapers, and the reports of the Health 
Officer and of the hospitals, the list, I think, is as fairly correct a one as 
can be made, although there are many cases of injury not reported anywhere. 
I will furnish these lists and these newspaper accounts to the committee. 
I also sent for this same porter, Lawrence Sullivan, to get him to come on 20 
here, to testify before the committee, and he agreed to come. But I found, 
curiously enough, that the landlord of the hotel where he was employed 
did not think it would be a sufficiently attractive advertisement for his ho- 
tel, and he would not permit him,to come or give his evidence. I think, 
therefore, that I have the right to say that the experiments made in New 
York on the human frame have shown practically the same results as the 
experiments made here upon animals. The experiments were more expen- 
sive to the victims there. We do not wish to repeat them here, if we can 
help it. 
Is water gas much cheaper than coal gas ? Is it sold for less ? 
The gas companies in New York during the last two weeks have been sum- 
moned before the Legislative committee, to which I have already called your 
attention, and testified, under oath, what their gas cost them during the last 
ten years. The evidence I have only seen reported in the newspapers. 
The committee also employed an expert to examine the books of all the gas 
companies in New York City. Last year at the water-gas hearing, the 
water-gas advocates testified that water gas could be made thirty-three and 
a third per cent cheaper than coal gas. But when the New York expert 
had gone all through the books of the water-gas companies in New York 
City, he made a statement of what the cost had been in New York for the 
past ten years, from the books of the gas companies themselves, and he 
produced it to the Legislative committee, and it was put in evidence ; and it 
appeared from that tabular statement that the average cost of gas made by 
the New York Gas Company for the past ten years was SI.41 a thousand 
cubic feet; and that made by the Municipal Gas Company, $1.16 per thou- 
sand cubic feet. That is the evidence from their own books ; and that is 
the cost of gas without adding thereto interest on the capital invested. 
Taking the statement made up from the books of the gas companies of 
New York, taking the price of water gas sold in the various cities in this 
country, and finding that there is not a single place, so far as I know, ex- 
cept in Chicago, where they are selling water gas as cheap as we are selling 
coal gas to-day in Boston, I think we are justified in saying that it is not 
the fact that water gas can be made thirty-three and a third per cent 
cheaper than coal gas. What the consumer is most interested in, however, 
is the price at which gas is sold to him, not what it costs the gas company. 
I think, therefore, I have the right to say that water gas is very little, 
if any, cheaper than coal gas. Perhaps this year we can make water gas 
somewhat cheaper. But as the law now stands, we do not propose to take 
the responsibility of making water gas. If the Legislature repeals the law, 
we will perhaps make water gas ourselves. If we do, we want to make it 21 
under the authority of the Legislature. Either amend the law, therefore, if 
you'want it enforced ; but if you consider water gas a sufficiently good and 
safe gas, repeal the law, and let it be made by anybody who wishes to. 
I have an amendment which I propose to submit to the committee, which 
makes the penalty for violating the law with regard to carbonic oxide one 
hundred dollars per day. It is merely a method of making the law en- 
forceable. 
Q. (by Mr. Crane). You said that if this law was not amended 
within a year, the gas light companies would all adopt water gas? A. 
No, I said I thought a great many of them would. 
Q. Well, if there is so much danger, why should they be allowed to do 
it? A. They ought not to be allowed to do it. My opinion is very strong 
about it. It is the business of the Legislature to decide. We do not want 
to make water gas, and we ask the Legislature to decline to repeal the law, 
and to make it stronger and more effective. And it seemed to me, as I 
said in the beginning, that while these other matters were pending before 
this Legislature, which would give the consumers an opportunity to control 
the price of gas, the Legislature should also decide positively what kind of 
gas should be made and sold ; and I think if no decided action is taken, you 
will find a good many gas companies in the State making water gas to pre- 
vent water-gas companies from coming in. 
Q. And they will do so because they can make water gas cheaper than 
coal gas? A. No, sir ; but to prevent water-gas companies from coming 
into their town, and competing. 
Q. (by Mr. Hallett). If water gas is better and cheaper than coal 
gas, is it not perfectly right for the people to have it? A. Yes, sir, cer- 
tainly. If it is, repeal the law. It was testified last spring at the hearing 
before the Board of Aidermen in Boston, by the engineer of the Consumers' 
Gas Company, that the Boston Gas Light Company could make water gas 
cheaper than any new company could. There is no doubt about that fact. 
We prefer to make coal gas; but if the people determine that water gas is 
desirable, and the Legislature sanctions the manufacture of it, why of course 
we will make it. 
Mr. Dillaway. -Who is to determine whether the people demand it? 
Mr. Greenough. - The Legislature. 
Mr. Dillaway. - Does your amendment reduce the amount of carbonic 
oxide ? 
Mr. Greenough.-No, sir. I leave the amount at ten per cent. I 
think the evidence shows pretty conclusively that ten per cent is the danger 
limit. If gas can be made without carbonic oxide, of course on some 22 
accounts it would be better. But coal gas cannot be made without some 
amount of it, varying from four to six per cent. If some process could be 
invented to make gas without carbonic oxide, it would be better ; but no 
such process has been put into successful operation yet. It would be safer 
to wait until it has been, rather than to put now such a limit to the amount 
of carbonic oxide in gas as would close at once all the coal-gas works in 
this State. I agree that it would be better to have no carbonic oxide in gas. 
But it appears positively that any quantity up to ten per cent is not spe- 
cially dangerous, and I think it would be better to keep the limit as it is at 
present. This question of the leakage of gas, to which Mr. Crane referred, 
has also an important bearing upon the question of the danger from water gas 
as affecting the public health. Tn New York City, for instance, the gas com- 
panies lose about ten per cent of their manufacture, somewhere about 
five hundred millions of cubic feet of gas a year, a good deal of which is 
undoubtedly running into and mixing with the atmosphere of the city. 
That is a great deal of gas. One of the gas companies, as it appeared at a 
hearing held yesterday in New York City, lost in one year eighteen and a 
half per cent of their make, by leakage, -nearly twenty per cent of their 
total manufacture. Most of this leakage occurs in the winter, when the 
frost breaks the gas pipes. This gas does not, and cannot, make its way 
up through the frozen street. It goes wherever it can find an outlet, and 
that outlet is generally into either the sewers or houses. It is largely 
deodorized by passing through the ground, and both water and coal gas 
have their smell taken out. 
There have been some very instructive experiments made in Germany, to 
see what became of the gas that leaked into the streets, a report of which I 
will read to the committee. And it was found that in winter, the occupied 
houses, being warmed, attracted the gas from the streets, by making a draught, 
and, having lost its smell, the gas has poisoned people, who could not dis- 
cover what was the cause of their illness. 
STATEMENT OF MALCOLM S. GREENOUGH, ESQ. 
Q. (by C. P. Greenough). What position in the Boston Gas Light 
Company do you hold? A. I assist my father in the management of the 
Boston Gas Company, and have the especial charge of the manufacture of 
the gas in all its details. It is my more particular business to acquaint 
myself with the whole business of gas manufacture in all its branches, espe- 
cially in regard to the new improvements of any kind, which are introduced 
in the manufacture of coal or water gas. I am supposed to be familiar 
with the details of the manufacture of gas in this country and abroad. 23 
Q. What experience have you had, both in this country and abroad? 
A. Well, sir, since leaving college, in 1868, I have been in the employ of 
the Boston Gas Light Company practically the whole time, taking also a 
course in the Institute of Technology, and passing considerable time in an 
iron foundry. I have made myself prettj" familiar with most of the gas 
works in the large cities in this country, and have made a very considerable 
examination of the gas works in England, Germany, and France. I have 
done what I could to make myself familiar with gas manufacture in that 
way. I am a member of various gas light societies in this country, and 
also in England and France. 
Q. Are you president of the New England Gas Engineers' Associa- 
tion? A. I am, at present. 
Q. Are you familiar with the manufacture of water gas? A. lam 
familiar with the manufacture of water gas to a considerable extent; not, of 
course, to the same extent that I am with coal gas. But I followed it with 
considerable care until the law was changed, which practically kept it out 
of Massachusetts, and until the agitation of the subject last year I did not 
give the question the detailed examination that I have since that time. 
After the Legislature adjourned last year, and when the question came up 
as to the advisability of manufacturing water gas in Boston,-for it was 
held up against us as our only crime that we would not make water gas, - 
I have given considerable study since then to the subject, and I believe to- 
day I can say I am an expert on water gas and its various details. 
Q. Where did you examine the manufacture of water gas? A. I have 
examined it in a number of places, and have talked with a good many men 
who are making it, and to whose works I have been. I have visited the 
Chicago works, of which we heard a good deal said in the course of last 
year. I visited the Washington works, where they are using it in connec- 
tion with coal gas. I have visited the Municipal works, in New York, and 
examined a considerable number of water-gas patents, and I have talked 
also with people in various parts of the country who are making water gas 
at present, and with people in other cities, as to its advantages and disad- 
vantages ; and I have been in consultation with other gas engineers as to the 
merits and demerits of water gas as compared with those of coal gas. 
Q. Will you state to the committee what, in your opinion, are its 
advantages and disadvantages? A. Well sir, water gas is made in a 
dozen different ways in this country. In many cases water gas has no 
advantages over coal gas, except, perhaps, in the relative matter of 
cost. That is, if you should compare eighteen-candle water gas and 
eighteen-candle coal gas, then the question is simply one of cost. 24 
In some places one is cheaper, and in some places the other is 
cheaper. Taking the gas as made by some of the companies in New 
York City, where a process is in use called the Tessie du Motay 
process, which was brought into notice by the establishment of the 
Municipal works in New York, that gas is of a very high grade, and 
there is no coal gas which will compare with it for light. There is no 
doubt about it. That is to say, while thirty candle-power gas can be 
made from cannel coal, it will not so easily burn as water gas of that 
quality. It is a very handsome gas, indeed. It is useless to say that the 
Boston gas gives as much light as that gas does. That gas is brighter than 
our gas. Now, the next question is as to the cost. That depends largely 
upon circumstances. It depends very largely upon the value of the resid- 
ual products in the places where the companies do business. In a great 
city, like New York or Boston, where the production of gas per inhabitant 
is very large, and the production of coke is very large, the amount we net 
per ton of coke does not compare with what they net in the smaller cities. 
There is in some of the smaller cities and towns a great demand for coal 
tar for sidewalks. I have in mind a company in Massachusetts where they 
pay all their dividends from what they get from coal tar, ammonia, and 
coke. In Boston we can hardly do half that at the present time. In other 
places, it varies according to localities. 
In some cases water gas is cheaper than coal gas. In other cases coal gas 
is very much cheaper than water gas. It is a question of degree. Suppos- 
ing the two gases were of equal value in light and of equal cost, nobody 
would prefer the water gas. If water gas can be made more cheaply than 
coal gas, but with additional risk, then the question is, how much risk do 
you wish to take for the additional cheapness? Is the game worth the 
candle. That is what we want the Legislature to say, and we will accom- 
modate ourselves to the circumstances. We do not think it is worth the 
difference. I know what I can make water gas for here in Boston within 
two cents a thousand feet. I have my prices of naphtha, and I know pretty 
well what hard coal would cost. I have looked the matter over, and I can 
make water gas like that which is used in New York for a certain price. I 
can make coal gas at the present price of residuals, within a very few cents 
of it. If naphtha went up a cent a gallon, and I could get a few cents 
more a bushel for coke, I could do better with coal gas. Now, I admit at 
once that the gas which I should make from water gas would be whiter 
than the gas from coal. But on the other hand, the result would be, in my 
judgment, that we should smother some of the people here in Boston in 
winter. It might not be a great number, and it might be from careless- 25 
ness. It is a question for the Legislature to say, and we want you, gentle- 
men, to settle it. If you, gentlemen, say that you want water gas manufac- 
tured in this State, then we should consider ourselves at entire liberty to 
make it, if we think we can make money by it. That is about the position 
in which the Boston Gas Light Company stands at present. 
Q. Then you say that you cannot dispose of your coke and coal tar as 
well as companies can in smaller cities? A. No, sir, we cannot. It is 
not so always. It depends upon the manufacturing industries of the State 
as to how we can get rid of the coke advantageously. 
Q. Suppose you had the opportunity to sell your residuals at a higher 
price, you could make coal gas cheaper than you do now? A. Yes, sir, 
somewhat. If all the companies around Boston, except ourselves, would 
make water gas, I think I can make coal gas five or six cents cheaper than 
I can do it to-day, because I can sell my coke to their customers, and get 
the average price for it. In the interest of the Boston Gas Company, I 
would be very glad if every other company should sell water gas, because 
I know we could make coal gas cheaper than we can do it to-day. 
[Adjourned to Tuesday, March 24, at 10 a. m.] 
Tuesday, March 24, 1885, 10 a. m. 
Q. (by Mr. C. P. Greenough). Please give the committee a state- 
ment as to your investigation of the danger of water gas, and when the 
matter was first called to your attention. A. I could not state definitely, 
but when the question of water gas was first brought before the gas companies 
of the country, there was, of course, no legislation on the subject. The 
various merits and demerits of water gas were considered solely in relation 
to the cost and the inconveniences of its use. It was not until the 
various processes had been in use for some time that it was noticed that 
the deaths in cities where water gas was used had materially increased in 
number, and then it was seen that the reason was the presence in it of the 
large amount of carbonic oxide. The result of the use of water gas was 
such as to cause a strong protest against it from the coal-gas people, who 
believed, I think, in most cases, that if coal gas had been used, the deaths 
would not have ensued, and therefore they felt that water gas was not a 
proper gas to make. It was about 1878 or 1879, perhaps a little earlier 
than that, that these deaths became noticeable from their frequency. They 
occurred then and afterwards in New York, Brooklyn, and Toronto, and in 
other places where they had changed from coal gas to water gas. They occurred 
in various cities out West, and it was noticed that in Baltimore, where they 26 
had changed from coal gas to water gas, in the course of a short time several 
people were smothered. I know that a great many coal-gas companies in this 
country feel a strong sense of responsibility, from the fact that they have 
been monopolies. I know that is the feeling of several of the Boston gas 
companies, and I know it is especially so with the Boston Gas Light Com- 
pany. There have been no better citizens of Boston than the directors of 
the Boston Gas Light Company. They have felt the responsibility of their 
public position, and desired to meet the public demand. The feeling of 
these gentlemen is, that they do not want to supply water gas to the citi- 
zens of Boston, because they believe that it is a more dangerous gas. Be- 
cause they have taken that position, public sentiment has been somewhat 
excited against them, the charge being made that the company was keep- 
ing from the public something that they want. 
The Boston Gas Light Company want the Legislature to express their 
views on this subject. It is possible that we may be prejudiced against 
water gas ; but we do not believe that the benefits from its use will counter- 
balance the danger. I do not suppose that if water gas is used in Boston, 
it will increase the death rate very largely, but I have no doubt that, by the 
use of it in this city, we should smother four or five people every winter. 
That would be my expectation. We do not want to take that responsi- 
bility ; but if the public want water gas, I suppose we can give it to them. 
Q. (by the Chairman). Do you think it is possible to eliminate car- 
bonic oxide from water gas? A. I can only say that it has never been 
done. I have always taken the ground that it could be done. As soon as 
the public say, "We want to be supplied with water gas without carbonic 
oxide," it will be done. 
Q. (by Mr. Hallett). You are a chemist? A. To some extent. 
Q. And know the whole thing. Now, why is it they want the thirty 
per cent of carbonic oxide in their gas, when it is not an illuminant, but a 
heating element? Why do they retain such a large per cent of poison in 
their gas? A. They cannot get it out, and it is cheaper to leave it in 
than it is to try to take it out. 
Q. Yes, yes. A. When water gas is made, it is made in a cupola. 
They fill this up with hard coal, put an air blast into the bottom, and blow 
it up quite hot. Then they turn a jet of steam as hot as they can get it 
into the bottom of the cupola. The steam at once burns the coal, which is 
decomposed. When you burn coal with steam, you make carbonic oxide 
and hydrogen, water being composed of oxygen and hydrogen. The oxy- 
gen unites with the coal and makes carbonic acid and hydrogen. Now, it 
is one of the qualities of carbonic acid that, if you pass it through coal, it 
i 27 
becomes carbonic oxide, and the resulting gases are carbonic oxide and hy- 
drogen. Now, that would be about half and half of carbonic oxide and hy- 
drogen. They then put oil gas into it, and they reduce the percentage of 
carbonic oxide, and they get as a result a gas which contains about thirty 
per cent of carbonic oxide. Now, if they want to take that out, they have 
got to turn that carbonic oxide back again into carbonic acid, and take out 
the carbonic acid. I have always been of the opinion that when the public 
demanded water gas without carbonic oxide, they would treat it with an 
excess of steam, or something of that kind, which can be done in various 
ways, and that would reduce the product of carbonic oxide. But as long as 
the public allows them to make it with thirty per cent of carbonic oxide, 
they will do it. They have been experimenting in various places to reduce 
the amount of carbonic oxide. The Equitable Company, in New York, was 
organized some years ago for that purpose. 
The Municipal Gas Company, in New York, was the first company to make 
water gas, and they were successful, as far as the gas is concerned. The 
other gases were not all of first-rate quality. They condense in the 
pipes. There was some talk the other day about tar in the pipes. When 
the pipes are cleaned out there is no more coal tar in them, but they do get 
a deposit of oily matter in the pipes, unless the water gas is made very 
carefully. I have known oily matter to come out from the pipe and be set 
on fire, and spurt out from a pipe as it is turned on, and fall down into a 
man's shop window and burn holes in his goods. I cite this as an example, 
to show how badly it can be made. But the Municipal people were a good 
deal disturbed about this carbonic oxide. There were deaths occurring every 
day. Mr. Tessie du Motay, the inventor, was a very kind-hearted man, 
and set to work to see if he could not take out the carbonic oxide. At the 
works one day I met the general manager, Mr. Franklin, to whom I was 
accredited, and he gave me a circular showing that they had a process for 
taking out carbonic oxide. Their process was such as I have described. 
Mr. Tessie du Motay died, and there was a quarrel over the control of the 
patents. The Equitable Company was organized to furnish gas without 
this carbonic oxide. They have put in a capital of $2,000,000, laid several 
miles of pipe, and have started business. They are now in operation in 
New York. It is very difficult to find out what they are doing, but I 
understand that they had the gas analyzed, and that they had reduced the 
amount of carbonic oxide to about fifteen per cent. The process does not 
work as well as they expected, but they have reduced the amount of carbonic 
oxide below what the other companies send out. I have no doubt that if the 
public demand it they will succeed in getting a complete removal of the 28 
carbonic oxide. I do not believe there is danger of carbonic oxide below 
ten per cent, but I think it ought to be got down below thirty per cent. 
If it is reduced to fifteen per cent you reduce the danger just one half, and 
you would have to get double the quantity of gas leaking in a room to get 
the samd effect from it. 
Q. (by Mr. Crane). Of course if there is a great deal less in it, a man 
would stand it a good deal longer, and live through the night? A. Yes, 
sir. 
Q. (by Mr. C. P. Greenough). Have you made inquiries as to the 
popularity and success of this water gas where it is sold? A. Well, I 
have talked with engineers of gas companies, who have been manufactur- 
ing it, and also, in some cases, with engineers of companies that are com- 
peting with water gas. Of course I am more familiar with it in New York 
than elsewhere; but I have seen it during the last year in Chicago, and 
have talked with the engineers of both companies there, and have also seen 
it in Washington, where the coal gas company is using it in their own 
works. 
Q. When were you in Chicago, last? A. I was in Chicago last 
winter. 
Q. Did you make any inquiries then? A. Yes, sir; I visited the 
works of the water-gas companies, and also visited the office of the com- 
pany where they are manufacturing coal gas in opposition to water gas. 
Q. Did you make any inquiries as to the popularity of the gas? 
A. Yes, sir; the gas, as made in Chicago, is not a successful gas. It 
was made by what is known as the Granger process, and also by the Lowe 
process. At the water-gas works, they admitted that the gas was not sat- 
isfactory ; and they claimed that it was owing to the unsatisfactory conden- 
sation in the works. But whatever the difficulty was, the gas was certainly 
not giving satisfaction to the people in Chicago. The coal-gas company 
had prepared, and gave me at that time, a list showing the names of the 
gas consumers in Chicago who, after using water gas, had returned to the 
coal-gas company. This list contains the names of over five hundred 
people, who, after having gone over to water gas had come back to coal 
gas. It contains some of the largest consumers which the water-gas com- 
pany had, including the Chicago Tribune, I think. I do not know whether 
the Tribune is in the list or not; perhaps they came over afterwards. The 
gas was not a carefully made gas. 
It is by no means an easy thing to make a good water gas. It is an 
easy thing to make a cheap water gas. It is easy to make a water gas 
which shall not be a thoroughly well made gas ; but in order to make a 29 
good water gas you have got to take a great deal of pains about it, or else 
the gas is not permanent. To make naphtha into gas which will stay gas 
is a much more difficult process than to make coal into permanent gas. 
The temperature in which the gas is distilled affects the quality of the gas 
very materially. If you distil it at too high a heat, you turn it into lamp- 
black. If you distil it at too low a heat, the gas does not become good illumi- 
nating gas. Most of the water gases are not so arranged that naphtha can be 
subjected to the same heat. If you do not do that, you do not make a good 
gas. That is the case in Chicago. The process in New York is much 
superior for making gas of a regular grade than any other process in use. 
The gas at Chicago was not satisfactory. 
Q. (by Mr. Hallett). Do they use anthracite or bituminous coal in 
making water gas ? A. Anthracite. 
Mr. Hallett. - I have understood that the other was better, and would 
generate more gas, and cost one and a half or two dollars less than anthra- 
cite. Is not that it, Mr. Chairman? 
The Chairman. - Yes, but bituminous coal could not be used in the 
manufacture of water gas. 
Mr. Hallett. - I understood they used it, and that is the reason why 
they could furnish it for about half. 
The Chairman. - No, sir ; they could use incandescent coke instead of 
anthracite, and pass their mixture through that to take out the carbon, the 
same as they would through anthracite coal. That is a fuel gas. 
Mr. Hallett. - I got the two things confounded. 
Mr. M. S. Greenough. - There have been made various claims about 
using bituminous coal in that way ; but I do not think they have done it. 
When you turn steam upon bituminous coal it seems to melt in a way it 
does not hard coal. If they could do it I think it might reduce the 
cost, but I do not think they have done it satisfactorily. 
Q. (by Mr. C. P. Greenough). Did you go last year to the hospitals 
in New York, to find out the effect of water gas and coal gas upon the pa- 
tients? A. I did not go to the hospitals myself. I sent a man there. 
Q. What did you find there? A. The effect of the different kinds of 
gases was not appreciated by the gentlemen in charge of the hospitals so as 
to keep a record of the kind of gas by which the effect was caused. I went 
to see Dr. Bull, who had charge of one of these hospitals. He did not know 
much about the matter, but in his judgment the effect was what we sup- 
posed it to be, that one gas poisoned and the other suffocated. Then he 
gave me an interesting account of some experiments made by him on two 
or three people brought to the hospital in an uncdnscious state, from the 30 
use of gas. He made a transfusion of blood in one case, as showing the 
effect of poison upon the man ; he had drawn a large portion of blood from 
the man, had shaken it up, and had put back the oxygen which had been 
taken out by the carbonic oxide, and the man had lived. In another case 
he had filled the man up with blood from another person, and he pulled 
through. In another case he had drawn out the blood and put in salt and 
water to keep the veins moving, and at the same time drew the poisoned 
blood from the body; that person at first recovered, but had subsequently 
died, according to my recollection. 
Q. You only saw the doctor who had charge of the hospital? A. Yes, 
sir; and he gave me a pamphlet on the subject. 
Q. Did you see anybody in New York the other day connected with the 
hotels in the lower part of the city? A. Yes, sir; I saw a man, he may 
have been the same one whom Dr. Abbott saw. He was employed as night 
watchman at one of the hotels in the lower part of the city. He described 
to me substantially what was described the other day by Dr. Abbott. It 
was his business to go through the hotel every night and open a little slide 
into the room to smell it, and see if the gas was leaking, and if it was 
leaking, to go into the room and drag the person out. He had saved the 
lives of several persons during the past year. He was perfectly willing to 
make an affidavit of the fact, if necessary. But he had been there only 
a short time, only a year and a quarter, and they had used no gas there 
except water gas. 
Q. Is there any gas except water gas sold 'south of Grand Street, in 
New York? A. No, sir. 
Q. So that where any accident occurs in any locality in New York 
south of Grand Street, it must necessarily have happened from water gas 
alone? A. Yes, sir. The Mutual has a pipe running down beside that 
of the New York Company, and they are making water gas also. 
Q. You went on to Yonkers last week, I understand, to make an inves- 
tigation of some gas there. What result did you find there? I wish you to 
state to the committee also what the result of competition was in Yonkers. 
A. Well, the gas I went on to examine did not turn out to be what I ex- 
pected. I brought some of the gas home with me and I am having an 
analysis made, but have not got through. It is a gas made from coal, naph- 
tha, steam, and air. It is a very bright gas, containing a very small per- 
centage of carbonic oxide, and a considerable percentage of nitrogen. I 
wanted to see if they could make this gas without carbonic oxide, or with a 
comparatively small percentage of it. It is not exactly water gas. They 
have had three gas companies in Yonkers, and also a fuel gas company. 31 
The original company which supplied Yonkers with gas was a coal-gas com- 
pany. It is rather amusing, the way in which this thing has worked there. 
It has worked in one way for the benefit of the company, and in another 
way not for the benefit of the company. Yonkers is a place of about twenty 
thousand inhabitants. In 1876 a small company, with 8100,000 capital and 
$100,000 bonds, was supplying gas at $4 a thousand feet. 
The public became dissatisfied with the price of $4 a thousand feet, 
and demanded a reduction. They secured the passage of a bill through the 
Legislature, and the old company reduced the price to $3. Some rich 
men in the vicinity were not satisfied, and got up a new company with 
$185,000 capital and $50,000 bonds, and set up a water-gas process, 
the Lowe process ; and also got hold of the Strong fuel process. When the 
new company came in, the result was that the price was put down from $3 
to $1.50, and then from $1.50 to $1. Then the new company got sick of it, 
and offered to sell out body and bones for fifty thousand dollars, and clear out. 
But'the old company said, " No; we will divide the town with you; you 
give us your pipes in our section, and we will give you our pipes in your 
section, and you can stay." They divided the town, and put the price of 
gas up to $2.80. Then the Municipal Company, in New York, were looking 
about for some small place to try their process. Some people had objected 
that this process did not pay in a small town, and there being great dissat- 
isfaction in Yonkers, they sent there, and put in another company, with 
$165,000 capital and $50,000 bonds, to supply this small town with gas, 
when one company could have done it easily with $100,000. When they 
came in, the companies agreed all around that they would not put the price 
below $2 a thousand for consumers. They kept on for some time, until 
the old company heard that the Municipal Company was cutting rates. So 
the old company put the price down to $1.50. Now they are selling for 
$1.25, and they are trying to see what they can do to damage each other's 
business. Now, there is nearly $700,000 worth of money put into that 
town, and they are going to make the public pay the interest on it. 
Q. (by Mr. Hallett). And $100,000 would do the business, you say? 
A. Yes, sir; perhaps $100,000, but $150,000 certainly would. It is a 
small town, with about twenty thousand population, spread over a consid- 
erable country. The result is, that at present there are three sets of gas 
pipes in all the streets. They told me that when they had a leak there, 
each company disowned the leak, and declined to have anything to do with 
digging up, or looking for it. So the superintendent of streets, who is 
ordered by ordinance to fix any gas leaks and charge the expense to the gas 
company, cannot tell which company the pipe belongs to, and when he has 32 
fixed up the leaks the town has to pay for the expense from the general 
appropriation. 
Q. (by Mr. C. P. Greenough). How much of this carbonic oxide is 
found in the gas of the Boston Gas Light Company, on an average? A. I 
think about five and six per cent, on an average. We have had it less than 
four pei- cent, and sometimes as high as six per cent. 
Q. Is there any way of getting it out? A. None that I know of at 
all. I do not know any way in which that carbonic oxide can be elimi- 
nated, and it has never been found advisable to attempt to do so, because it 
exists in so small a percentage; and because when it is used it is, as a 
general thing, innocuous, and there seems to be no reason to try to get it 
out below six or seven per cent. The amount of that gas liable to remain 
in a room, in case of a leak, is so small that it is excessively rare to 
have accidents from it. It was stated, last year, that there had been ten 
or eleven deaths from gas in Boston; but if that is so, I can say that we 
never knew it; and I do not believe it. Most of them were put down, in 
the office at City Hall, as cases of suffocation, and there was very little to 
be discovered about them. A man died here, year before last, at one of 
the hotels, but I do not know under what circumstances. We smothered a 
person once by breaking a gas main in the street. She slept in a cellar 
which led out into a court, in which there was a gas pipe. They had put a 
sewer through the court after our gas pipe had been put down there, and it 
had made the ground settle, and there was this large leak of gas which 
communicated through the wall into the cellar of the room. The woman 
died, but her children were got out, and resuscitated. 
Q. That was in 1879, I think? A. I think it was longer ago than 
that. 
Q. 1878, I think ; but since then you have had no notice of anybody being 
suffocated from coal gas? A. I have no recollection of it; but since then 
I have heard of one man being suffocated in Boston. 
Q. What is your opinion as to the necessity of limiting the amount of 
carbonic oxide to five per cent? A. It does not seem to be necessary. 
Of course it is all a tentative question. As coal gas is at present manu- 
factured you rarely get an accident from it. With gas containing thirty 
per cent of carbonic oxide, you occasionally smother somebody. The experi- 
ments related by Prof. Sedgwick the other day were entirely new to me, espe- 
cially the discovery that it is impossible to retain a large quantity of gas in 
a room, although you are continually turning gas into it. He said you 
cannot get more than three and a half per cent into a room. If you have 
three and a half per cent of gas in a room, and one per cent of that is car- 33 
bonic oxide, the chemists say it will kill. On the other hand, if you leak 
that quantity of gas into a room, and the gas contains ten per cent of car- 
bonic oxide, instead of thirty per cent of carbonic ox:de, you get less 
than one third of one per cent, and that quantity will not kill. Take 
those two limits, thirty per cent and ten per cent of carbonic oxide, and 
you may say that one kills and the other does not. Now you might get 
fifteen per cent of carbonic oxide and not kill; but at ten per cent there 
seems to be no special danger from it, and there does not seem to be any 
special reason for reducing the percentage. 
Q. (by a member of the Committte). If it were possible to get that 
element, carbonic oxide, entirely out of the gas, would it give as good a 
light? A. I think not. 
Q. You would have to have some of it to improve the light? A. I 
think some of it does. I think if we had fifteen per cent of carbonic oxide 
in our gas it would improve the light. 
Q. (by the Chairman.) Carbonic oxide aids combustion? A. I think 
it does, and increases the temperature of the light. 
Q. (by Mr. Ames). Is that the reason water gas is brighter? A. 
There is a good deal of difference of opinion why that is so. It is one 
opinion that water gas has a higher temperature than the coal gas flame. 
Q. (by Mr. Gkeenough). Do you mean that the gas is more completely 
burned? A. Yes. I will tell you one reason that leads me to think so. 
It has been found that if you increase the temperature of the flame you can 
largely increase the light-giving power of the gas. In the burning of ordi- 
nary coal gas we do not get all the light there is in the gas. But burners 
have beeen greatly improved during the past few years. Burners have been 
invented which give more light by a more complete burning of the gas. If 
you do not have a good burner, you are likely to lose fifty per cent of the 
light. I think the Argand burner is the most satisfactory burner you can 
use. 
The same Mr. Siemens, who invented the regenerative furnace used in 
smelting iron, also invented the regenerative gas burner, by which the pro- 
ducts of combustion are turned over and used to heat the incoming air, so 
that the burning power would be greatly increased from what it would be 
in any ordinary burner; and that has been the result, although at a large 
additional cost. By that burner double the quantity of light can be got 
from the same quantity of gas ; in fact more than that. I have taken our 
gas at my office, in my photometric room, which, if it were twenty-candle 
gas, would give four candles to the cubic foot, and I have taken the Sie- 34 
mens burner and got out of the gas between nine and ten candle-power 
per foot. Now they cannot increase the light given from oil-gas flame in 
the same way. By comparing twenty-candle coal gas with thirty-candle 
oil gas it was found that the coal gas gives as much light as the oil gas, 
although ordinarily the oil gas gives more than the coal gas. It looked as 
if from coal gas properly burned, the light would be equal to the oil-gas 
flame. I think if we were able to increase somewhat the percentage of 
carbonic oxide in our gas, with the same light-giving constituents, we should 
get more light. 
Q. (by Mr. Ames). Is that Siemens burner used here in the city 
at all? A. Yes; there are only one or two in use. I know a club- 
house where it is in use. We made various experiments with them in the 
streets. They give a beautiful light; but they require to be watched all the 
time. We have no governor that will hold them against the wind, and 
they break up the glasses. 
Q. (by Mr. Greenough). Can you give the amount of water gas and 
coal gas delivered in New York City, in general? A. Well, I think at 
present about two thirds of the gas is water gas ; perhaps more than that. 
Q. 2,700,000,000 of feet of coal gas, and 2,543,000,000 of water gas 
were delivered last year, were they not? A. Yes; but lately they have 
shut up the Harlem works, which was a coal-gas works, and put water gas 
in, which is supplied from the Knickerbocker works, and it has caused the 
greatest dissatisfaction in Harlem. Of course, not only are the workmen 
turned out of a job, and distress is caused to their families, but the public 
are considerably worked up about having this gas forced upon them. There 
is a good deal of feeling in the town at being obliged to have water gas. I 
saw it so stated in the newspapers the other day. 
Q. (by Mr. C. P. Greenough). What is the effect of the cold weather 
upon gas? A. Cold weather plays the mischief with the gas supply. If 
you suddenly lower the temperature from fifty degrees to zero, it condenses 
some gaseous matter back into liquid, and it will settle back in the pipes 
and freeze there. If you consider the cold weather we have been having 
for the last two months, you can see how the freezing of the ground must 
affect the pipes. There has been an immense amount of trouble in the 
supply all over the town. The people have come to the office a hundred a 
day, and all you can do is to go around and clean out the pipes. 
Q. (by a member of the Committee). I would like to know if water gas 
would freeze up ? A. That would depend. Ido not know whether they 
have the same trouble in the pipes that we do. But they have an immense 
amount of trouble from naphthalene, if the gas is made of good quality. 35 
That trouble is entirely unknown to us. But in water-gas works, where the 
oil is all turned into gas, they have sometimes an immense trouble from 
naphthalene. Naphthalene is a very peculiar crystalline substance, which 
evaporates when exposed to air, £nd which contains a great deal of the 
light-giving qualities of gas. It is held in solution and suspension by the 
rich part of the gas. If the gas falls below a certain temperature this 
naphthalene seems to come out of it, which is a very curious thing. I have 
known them to have a twenty-four inch pipe stopped up by naphthalene. 
If the water gas is not thoroughly made they would have more trouble than we 
would from naphthalene. 
Q. (by C. P. Greenough). What is its effect upon meters and gasome- 
ters? A. That depends upon the gas. In the Municipal Gas Works, in 
New York, they have had an immense amount of trouble in their holders 
from this naphthalene in the gas taking the oil out of the joints, and 
making the holders and fixtures leak. If the water gas is not so well made 
they do not have this trouble with naphthalene. Where they do not have 
that, they do not seem to have the same trouble with the holders, but they 
are liable to have trouble with the fixtures in the houses. The fixtures get 
clogged up, and the oil gets out of the joints. 
In using water gas you have got to have all the old burners changed, as 
they find that in the case of the ordinary lava-tipped burner, the water gas 
forms a deposit on the burner, and does not give good light, and you have 
got to use a metal-tip burner in order to get good light. 
Q. How is it in regard to the danger of explosions at the works? Have 
there been any explosions at the water-gas works? A. There have been 
explosions from the use of naphtha. That is the risk which causes consid- 
erable anxiety to the manufacturer. There have been occasional deaths, and 
four men were killed at the Municipal Works, in New York. But they 
are getting more careful with it, and accidents are more infrequent than 
they used to be. 
Q. (by a member of the Committee) . Can they use the same capacity 
of tip to the burner with water gas as they do with coal gas? A. I think 
they can, but I do not think it it is customary. I think they generally use 
a rather smaller burner to burn this water gas in. I do not think it works 
so well in an Argand burner. It is somewhat liable to smoke. It is a very 
pretty gas for theatres and stores. I do not think they like it as well in 
private houses as they do coal gas. In fact, it has been the judgment of a 
great many coal-gas people throughout this country, that the gas furnished 
by the Boston Gas Light Company was of too high a quality, and that the 
public liked a gas which did not give much over sixteen-candles light, which 36 
would burn freely, and would not smoke up the ceilings. I think it is so 
myself; but the public seem to like a high grade of gas, and, therefore we 
make it. 
Q. (by Mr. Hallett). What do you use for enriching your gas? A. 
Cannel coal. We have made some experiments with naphtha, but I do not 
know that it is on the whole much richer. 
Q. Is not rosin used? A. They used to make gas out of it, but I 
don't think they are using it now. It will enrich the gas. All these things 
are questions of locality as to which is the cheapest thing to use. 
Q. Now, as I like to learn, the way to learn is to ask questions. Now, in 
our town [the price of gas was $3 a thousand, and a good many people 
discontinued using it. By and by the company thought it was advis- 
able to put the price down t-> SI.50 a thousand, and the result was that a 
great many commenced using it, that had discontinued it before. I had 
been using it all the while. I was burning the same Argand burner in the 
house all the time. But I found my bills were just as large when the gas 
was SI.50 a thousand, as they were at $3 a thousand. I asked about it, 
and they said they had a way of thinning it down, and forcing more of it 
through the pipes. A. I don't think they could do quite that. 
Q. But how did they manage to keep the bills up just the same? A. I 
should want to be more familiar with the circumstances, before replying 
fully. It may be that you burn more gas. It is unquestionably the fact 
that people use gas with more freedom when it is cheaper. 
Q. Exactly; just as when apples are one dollar a barrel, I would buy 
five or six barrels, but if they were five dollars a barrel, I should not come 
in for more than one half that. A. Yes; and you would use gas more 
freely at $1.50. You would say, " It is cheap ; and you need not put that 
burner out." Admitting, of course, that the gas may have been thin, and 
that they put a pressure upon it, you cannot always compare the bills of one 
month with those of another, because the weather affects the use greatly. 
Now, last spring, there was great complaint because of the bills of the 
Boston Gas Company. But last spring was the darkest spring ever known 
in Boston, and we sold more gas during February of last year than we did 
for the February before ; it was burned pretty much all the time. Febru- 
ary of this year we sold much less gas than we did a year ago, simply because 
we had a bright, clear month, against a dark month of a year ago. 
You may be comparing a clear season with a dark season, or a clear month 
with a dark month. The weather affects the consumption of gas very much. 
Q. My gas meter is what is called a dry meter. A. They are all dry, 
now. 37 
Q. They used to be wet, and they gave that up? A. Yes, sir; they 
had to go around and see that your meter did not freeze, and dry meters 
were substituted in a cold climate. We do not charge any meter rents, here 
in Boston, at all. 
Q. Then you have more conscience than our gas people have. A. Our 
conscience is pretty clear. 
Q. (by Mr. C. P. Greenough). How much gas that you make in Boston 
is not sold ? A. I think that last year we lost eight per cent. 
Q. That is about eighty million cubic feet of gas? A. About that. 
Q. How much was lost in New York? A. They have lost a great 
deal more. They have run as high as from eleven to twelve per cent, 
which is the lowest, I think up to as high as eighteen per cent. I think 
that they lost in New York last year seven hundred millions of feet. 
Q. (by the Committee). I would like to know if a gas company meas- 
ures all the gas they make before it passes through the supply pipes ; if you 
meter it at your works? A. Yes, sir ; that is the last thing that is done 
with it before it goes into the gas-holder. 
Q. So you can measure the difference between what is made and what 
is lost? A. Yes, sir; the loss is figured between the amount that is sup- 
plied and the amount that is made. Some of our loss goes into the street 
lamps. We are paid so much for our street lamps, and if we burn more 
than we are paid for that gas goes into leakage. 
Q. (by Mr. Dillaway). One of the troubles in making coal gas, and one 
of the things you try to get out, is ammonia, is it not? A. We get it out, 
because we can sell it. 
Q. If it is left in, it does not benefit the gas? A. No, I think not. I 
do not think it is possible to take it out unless you take out a little of the 
illuminating power with it, but, at the same time, I think it ought to come 
out. It is undoubtedly deleterious if it remains in the gas in large quanti- 
ties. 
Q. Another element that you try to get out is sulphur, is it not? A. 
Yes, sir. 
Q. There is a limit, in the law of this State, to the quantity of sulphur 
that shall be permitted in gas? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Of course you have to get out the coal tar? A. You could not 
make coal gas without taking out the coal tar. 
Q. Now, do you have these elements in water gas, sulphur, coal tar, and 
ammonia? A. No, sir; you do not have coal tar. You have some sticky 
stuff in your pipes, but it is not coal tar. 38 
Q. Is it not a fact that ammonia has an injurious effect upon the regis- 
tering power of the meter ? A. I do not think that is true, unless it ap- 
peared in large quantities. If you did not take out the ammonia of course 
it would have a deleterious effect, but with the small quantity allowed in this 
State I do not think it is deleterious ; nothing like naphtha. 
Q. Well, what is the matter in coal gas that interferes with the action 
of the meter? A. Tarry matter. 
Q. Is there not something which dries the diaphragm? A. The dia- 
phragm gets dry, if it is not in use. 
Q. Is it not true that the presence of sulphur and ammonia in the gas 
fittings affects them? A. Do you mean in tarnishing them, or what? 
Q. I mean, does not it injure the joints ? A. No ; I do not think it does. 
Q. Does it not have anjr effect upon the joints, and does it not cause 
any leakages? A. I never knew of it. 
Q. The average amount of carbonic oxide in the gas which your com- 
pany makes here in Boston, I have seen stated in the inspector's report, to 
be 6.74. I refer to page 23 of House Document No. 50. 
Mr. C. P. Greenough. -Is there not a note, at the bottom of the page, 
in regard to that? That is only one sample. You asked the question 
whether it is the average. 
Mr. Dillaway. - I ask whether it is not a fair average of the amount of 
carbonic oxide found in your gas. 
Mr. M. S. Greenough. - I have already testified that it was rather high. 
I have had some analyses made by our own chemist, and he foui d in one 
gas that we had as low as four per cent. 
Q. Is that an average sample? A. So far as I knew it was, but other 
tests show a higher rate. I should think it was high at six per cent, but I 
could not swear to it, because it requires a very careful test to ascertain 
the quantity, and you have got to analyze it carefully to get out the car- 
bonic oxide in the gas. It is not like a matter that is tested daily. 
Q. The average in the Dorchester gas works was 3.19 per cent. Can 
you explain the difference? A. I should say it is simply an accident on 
that occasion ? 
Mr. C. P. Greenough. - That is not stated to be the average. 
Mr. M. S. Greenough. - That was the only test made of our gas by Mr. 
Hinman, and probably the only one in Dorchester; and the next day he 
might have struck gas with seven per cent in it in Dorchester. 
Q. (by Mr. Dillaway). Now, the different percentages of the different 
gases, according to these analyses, vary according to the company that 
makes the gas? A. And according to the day they are tested. 39 
Q. There is not a regular quality about coal gas? A. I should not 
know how to put in the carbonic oxide, or take it out. 
Q. Now, do you observe in the inspector's report the statement that, in 
his opinion, he don't think the carbonic oxide can be taken out of coal gas 
without destroying the illuminating power ? A. I remember it. 
Q. Do you coincide with that? A. I do not know what connection 
there is between the illuminating power and the carbonic oxide. I do not 
know any way of getting it out. 
Q. I thought that in your statement you said that carbonic oxide tended 
to increase the illuminating power by increasing the flame. A. I think it 
does, and possibly it may have an effect in that connection as a vehicle for 
carrying the gas. It may increase the flame in that way. 
Q. Now do you understand from the inspector's report that carbonic 
oxide can be entirely eliminated from water gas? A. I read it over 
hastily. What does he say ? 
Q. He says it can be reduced to a small percentage, and he refers to 
some places where 'the percentage is as low as two per cent. Have you 
any reason to question that statement? A. Only to this extent, that it 
is not being done, so far as I know; and theory and practice are sometimes 
different things. Various people have professed to possess processes by 
which it could be done. I have in my mind three separate persons who say 
they can do it. The Equitable people said they could do it, but they have 
not done it. I think it can be done at a little extra cost. You have got 
to throw away a portion of the gas, probably, and then it is going to take 
some lime to get it out afterwards, and unless you can revivify that lime in 
the process it is going to be an expensive job. That is what the Equitable 
Company set out to do, but they have not succeeded. I think they will 
succeed, however. 
Q. You heard Mr. Flannery's statement? A. Yes, sir; I think he 
testified very fairly. 
Q. And you have not any particular reason to doubt his statement ? 
A. Except that I have seen the best gas engineers mistaken as to what 
could be done practically from the result of previous satisfactory experi- 
ments. Mr. Flannery has undoubtedly obtained some process for taking 
out carbonic oxide, and perhaps it is going to work. But it has not been 
put in practical operation, so as to authorize any man to say it will work. 
Q. Now, if carbonic oxide can be eliminated from water gas, there is no 
need of prejudice against water gas? A. None, so far as I am concerned, 
and so far as legislation is concerned. The only question that would bring 
it in comparison with coal gas in its use would be the satisfaction that the 
public would get from it. 40 
Q. Now, as to the naphtha used in it, what objection do you think 
there would be in operating it? A. I confess to an unwillingness to store 
great quantities of naphtha for use in water gas. 
Q. You mean to say that if you store that quantity of naphtha in your 
location at the North End, the danger would be so great that you would 
hesitate to do it? A. Well, sir, if I were going to make water gas I 
would like to make it down there. In any case you cannot pump fifty 
thousand gallons of naphtha a day without running some risk. They take 
the best possible care of it in the best organized works, but it is a constant 
anxiety to the people who have it in hand. With the greatest care, they 
have accidents at the large gas works where it is used. In New York they 
keep the naphtha across the river, and bring it over in fifty thousand gallon 
boats, and give it to the manufacturers every day or two. They pump it 
straight from the boat into the reservoirs, and from the reservoirs into the 
tank overhead, whence it goes into the gas works. They do it with great 
care. But in Boston you cannot keep it stored without a double risk. You 
cannot get your naphtha directly from New York by boat, as they do in New 
York City and Brooklyn. If you undertake to get it by tank cars, you are 
then hauling it in comparatively small quantities, each car holding only 
about five or six thousand gallons. It is a risky thing. 
It has been suggested to me, that we should dig a pipe line from Harri- 
son Square down to City Point, as has been done elsewhere, but I question 
whether the city of Boston would allow it to be done. They might, how- 
ever. It is a substance which is liable to evaporate so rapidly that the 
amount of naphtha actually paid for is much larger than that practically 
used when it goes into the gas. If you are going to make naphtha gas here 
in Boston, you are going to use a great deal of naphtha. Suppose we made 
four millions of cubic feet a day, we would require twenty thousand gal- 
lons of naphtha. If you keep a thirty-day supply on hand, that would be 
six hundred thousand gallons of naphtha. It may be we have got to do it, 
but I do not want to store twelve thousand barrels of naphtha around our 
works. I suppose we could keep it at Squantum. 
Q. Suppose you were to keep it at the Calf Pasture? A. Yes; but 
suppose it should get afire and burn out the Calf Pasture? 
Q. But would it do any serious damage? A. There are a great many 
small boats around there. 
Q. But those are away beyond. Would it not be practical, in your ex- 
perience, and with common-sense in handling; would they not be likely to 
locate in some place near tide-water, away from the populous localities, so 
that the danger would be reduced to a minimum? A. They would if they 
were wise. 41 
Q. And in a location remote from the inhabited parts of the city? 
A. That would materially reduce the danger. 
Q. How much naphtha is brought into the city now? A. I do not 
know. I suppose that what is used about here is manufactured at South 
Boston. 
Q. You never heard that there are thousands and thousands of barrels 
of naphtha brought daily in here now? A. No, sir ; I should be surprised 
to hear that such is the case. 
Q. And the quantity manufactured at South Boston is quite large ? A. 
I believe it is. 
Q. So that the works located here could draw a very large supply of 
naphtha here in Boston? A. If they wanted to pay for it. It would 
cost at least a cent more than in New York. 
Q. But suppose it was located in Boston, on First Street? A. I 
know they charge fifteen cents a gallon for it in small quantities. 
Q. It is in comparatively small quantities that you use it? A. We 
buy it in considerable quantities, and buy it about as cheap as you can get 
it? 
Q. But, pardon me, you do not mean to say that the Boston Gas 
Light Company use naphtha in the amount that the water-gas company 
would use it? A. No, sir ; I do not mean to be so understood. 
Q. The use of a large quantity would cause a considerable reduction in 
the price. A. I do not know whether they would be in a position at South 
Boston to furnish any such quantity as would be required by a large gas 
company. 
Q. That we will show by other evidence, perhaps. Now, Mr. Green- 
ough, you say that the effect of competition among these various gas com- 
panies has been combination in some instances, or that competition only 
lasted while each company was trying to get the better of the other? A. I 
said that was the case in Yonkers. I do not think I have testified here 
about competition in any way. 
Q. Is there any instance that you can name where competition of itself 
has not reduced the price of gas while competition lasted? A. Of course 
while competition lasted, the price was reduced. When you compete, you 
have got to offer inducements. 
Q. Now, can you name us an instance where there has been a competitive 
war, and the companies combined and the price of gas was raised, where it 
was not higher before competition than it was afterward ? A. I do not 
know about that; but I can name places where the price of gas is raised 
higher than it is in places where there is only one gas company. 42 
Q. But do you know where the price has been higher than it was before 
competition ? A. I am not prepared to give you any instances of that 
kind. 
Q. Well, take Yonkers; it is a small place? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Is it not a fact that in cities of large size the location of the pipes 
is accurately planned and recorded? A. Yes, sir. Excuse me, my 
brother calls my attention to the case of Providence where they have put 
the price back higher, because they said they had this additional capital to 
pay dividends on. They lowered the price to $2.00 and put it back to 
$2.25. The Citizens' Gas Light Company was organized in 1876, and gas 
was sold at $2.25. In 1877 gas was sold by the old company at $2.00. In 
1878 the Citizens' sold out to the old company, and competition ceased, 
and the price of gas advanced at once to $2.25. That was in 1878. 
Q. That price was not put up above what it was before competition 
began? A. No, sir. 
Mr. C. P. Greenough.-I think the competition did not begin until 
1877. It was just before the other company came in. 
Mr. Dillaway. - I should be glad to have you point to that. 
Mr. M. S. Greenough. - As I said before, that is not a fair com- 
parison. 
Mr. Dillaway. - We see the thing through different eyes. 
Mr. M. S. Greenough. - The true comparison, we contend, is not what 
gas was sold at in those towns before competition began, but what gas 
sold at in other cities where there'has been no competition; and we defy 
the opposition companies to produce any place in this country where gas is 
sold as cheap as it is in Boston. 
Q. (by Mr. Dillaway). Now take the facts here in Boston: gas is sold 
cheaper here than in the outlying districts? A. Certainly, of course. 
Q. Did you say that there has been no watering of the stock of the 
Boston gas light companies ? A. I answer only in reference to the 
Boston Gas Light Company. 
Q. I understood you to make the statement in regard to some of the 
other companies, and I think some reference was made to the capital 
invested by the different companies about Boston, and it was stated that it 
all represented money paid in, and that there was no water in the capital? 
A. I did not make that statement. You asked me yesterday what the 
capital was of the companies about Boston, and somebody prompted me as 
to the fact, and I stated what the capital of the various companies was. 
I have no personal knowledge as to what has been the course in the other 
companies. 43 
Q. Are the different companies in this State using naphtha to enrich 
their gas ? A. Some of them ; yes. 
Q. It is pretty generally used, is it not, by coal-gas companies, as an 
enricher? A. I don't think that can be said. Most of the people prefer 
cannel coal, if they can get it at a fair price. 
Q. Does not naphtha produce carbonic oxide? A. I do not suppose 
so. I should say not. If naphtha and steam are used together to enrich 
coal gas it might have an effect of that kind. 
Q. But you don't know that it does? You mean to say it does? A. 
No, sir ; I have not said so. 
Q. Now is it not a fact that it is claimed generally by the manufacturers 
of water gas that they are able to make it cheaper than coal gas? A. 
Well, I know it is claimed that they can, in certain localities. 
Q. Well, in what localities, speaking generally? A. They claim that 
they can make water gas cheaper in the large cities. 
Q. But how much cheaper do they claim that they can make it? A. 
You heard what Mr. Flannery said the other day. 
Q. I am not speaking of Mr. Flannery. I am asking you what is the 
general claim of the water-gas manufacturers throughout the country? You 
say that they claim that it can be made cheaper? A. I have heard all 
kinds of claims. I have had a man come to me and claim to be able to 
make water gas for three cents a thousand feet. 
Q. Was he sane? A. I don't think he was. 
Q. Please confine yourself to men who are sane. Is it not claimed that 
the process of manufacturing water gas is cheaper than that of manufactur- 
ing coal gas? A. Anyone of those gentlemen would admit at once it 
would depend upon the locality he was talking about. 
Q. I admit that; but is it not claimed that in the large cities they can 
make it cheaper? A. Yes, sir ; it is claimed by the water-gas men that in 
the large Eastern cities they can make water gas cheaper than coal gas. 
Q. I take it that the process of making water gas is a difficult and 
scientific one? A. It depends upon how it is made. It can be made by 
rule of thumb, or it can be made by machinery, and made by hand. 
Q. Is there not a great deal of experience and care required in the man- 
ufacture of coal gas? A. There ought to be. 
Q. I mean in making coal gas, is it not required? A. You ask me 
about scientific knowledge. I say it is advisable to have a man of brains 
to do it. I have had no practical experience in the manufacture of water gas, 
Q. I suppose it is equally difficult to make water gas? A. I have 
never made any. 44 
Q. Regarding Chicago, of which you spoke, have you any information 
as to the price of gas there? A. The price of gas in Chicago is different 
in the two parts of the city. In one part, I think they are selling coal gas 
for $1 a thousand, and water gas at $1.25 ; in the other part of the city, 
I think that they are selling water gas at $2.25 or $2.50. 
Q. Is that in the outlying districts? A. No; it is across the river. 
Chicago has had the benefits of competition before this. They had a com- 
pany go out there before, which compromised with the old company, and 
set up in a district of its own, and they are selling gas at $2.25 or $2.50. 
Q. That is the old company? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Now you produced a list of those people who had taken out water 
gas and put back coal gas. Don't you know that it is claimed by the new 
company in Chicago, that the number of their meters is greatly increasing? 
A. It seems to me an engineer of the new company told me that although 
they had lost a great many new customers, they had more meters out. I 
would not swear to that. As they have laid new pipes they say they have 
got new customers. They are continually laying new pipes. 
Q. Is it the general result of competition that one company gets some 
of the other company's business? A. People who do not wish to pay 
their gas bills are apt to change companies. 
Q. Does anybody ever succeed in that with a gas company. A. We 
have seldom sued anybody for gas bills. We wait until they want more 
gas, and then we make them pay up. If we had another gas company here 
they would go to them. 
Q. Is it not a fact that where one company has the lighting of an entire 
place that the private individual is powerless against the company, in case 
of a dispute about the bills? A. That is where the advantage of the 
proposed gas commission comes in. 
Q. I think I have heard you say that the lot of a gas man is not a 
happy one ? A. I think you may have heard it. 
Q. There is a great complaint against the company about gas bills ? A 
Yes, sir. 
Q. In the office they have a desk for complaints? A. All companies 
should have. 
Q. And if a man has a grievance he is practically remediless? A. 
There may have been companies that have been so exorbitant in their 
charges as to bring the whole business into disrepute. 
Q. Is it not a fact that gas companies resorted to this rule, that if the 
bills against an estate were not paid by the party moving out, they de- 
clined to furnish gas to that estate to a new occupant until their bills were 
paid? A. I do not know what that has to do with water gas. 45 
Mr. Dillaway. - I think it hag something to do with competition. 
Mr. M. S. Greenough.- I have not given any testimony here about 
competition except what happened at Yonkers. 
Mr. Dillaway. - I will withdraw the question. I do not care the snap 
of my finger for it. 
Mr. C. P. Greenough.- I am interested, as we all are, in hearing these 
questions, but perhaps it would be proper for Mr. Dillaway, if he appears 
here, to define his position. 
Mr. Dillaway. - I have defined my position very clearly. I came here 
as counsel, stating that the policy of the Commonwealth should be either 
that this restriction regarding the quantity of carbonic oxide should be re- 
moved, or else it should be put at five per cent, and that that should be the 
policy of the Commonwealth. In a discussion of this kind, where the gen- 
eral discussion is a matter of policy, I do not know that I should have 
taken the position of a remonstrant or anything else. 
Mr. C. P. Greenough. - That is the first time I have heard you state 
your position. 
Mr. Dillaway. - I should think you would have understood it before, 
from the questions I have asked. 
Mr. M. S. Greenough. - I should be glad to go into the whole question 
of competition here. 
Mr. Dillaway. - I think you have gone into it. 
The Chairman. - The scope of the petition was only to go into the 
effects of the carbonic oxide in gas, but the Chair has allowed the investi- 
gation to go into other matters, and the Chair thinks that the matter can 
be settled between the parties without the ruling of the Chair. 
Q. (by Mr. Dillaway). Now, Mr. Greenough, will you tell us the his- 
tory of the manufacture of water gas? Is not this the fact, that the records 
of deaths resulting from the use of coal gas have been kept exclusively by 
coal-gas people? A. Why no; no more than they have seen the deaths 
noticed in the papers. 
Q. Is that the only record of deaths from coal gas, that which can be 
found in the newspapers? A. The companies have not kept any records 
of deaths from the use of coal gas, because they have not had them. 
Q. Do you mean to say there have not been any deaths from coal gas? 
A. Very few; not enough to be practically noticed. I told you that 
I had only heard of two that I have ever known of in Boston; one was 
either a suicide or an accident. 
Q. You have only heard of two? A. I do not mean to say there have 
been no others. I never heard of them. 46 
Q. Has there been any record kept in New York of deaths from coal 
gas ? A. I think there has. I think it appeared in evidence last year. 
In the last five or six years, since the thing became noticeable, of course 
they have kept a more careful record. 
Q. At the instigation of the coal-gas people? A. The coal-gas peo- 
ple kept them to some extent. 
Q. So that the one authentic record of deaths from coal gas that we 
have are the records kept by the coal-gas people? A. These records 
came from the coroner's office, to some extent; of course the coal-gas peo- 
ple take pains to investigate and see what sort of gas killed the people. 
Q. Don't you recollect that last year Prof. Chandler, of New York, was 
asked about the investigation by coroners, in New York? A. Very 
likely. I don't recollect. 
Q. Don't you recollect that he testified that they were kept very loosely? 
A. Very likely he testified in that way. 
Q. Now these records of deaths from coal gas are not separated? A. 
They are simply kept in the coroner's office as deaths from inhalation of 
gas. The coal-gas people examine and find out about them. The 
coal-gas people are naturally interested in the matter. The water-gas 
people are not interested in keeping these records. 
STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. HINMAN, STATE INSPECTOR 
OF GAS. 
Q. (by Mr. C. P. Greenough). You have made some examination in 
regard to the relative explosive power of water and coal gas. A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You are the gas inspector of this State? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. When were you appointed inspector ? A. I was appointed in 1871, 
by Governor Claflin, on the recommendation of the president of the Insti- 
tute of Technology, and have held the position ever since. 
Q. You have made some investigations as to the comparative explosive 
power of water gas and coal gas? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Will you state briefly what the result of your examination was? 
A. I had seen some statements in regard to the different explosive effects 
of water gas and coal gas, and an argument based on the fact that coal gas 
contained considerably more marsh gas than water gas, and therefore was 
considerably more explosive. I did not think those arguments well founded, 
and to test them I made some experiments. The experiments were made 
in this way: I took an iron bottle, such as is used for containing mercury, 
containing about one tenth of a cubic foot. I had carefully screwed into 47 
t a rifle barrel, and had means of exploding gas inside of the iron bottle, 
by means of electricity. The iron bottle was filled with the mixture of gas 
and air to be tested. The gas and air were mixed in the right proportions 
to make the greatest explosive force, and the bullet being fitted in the 
barrel, the gas was exploded. The force was measured by the impression 
the bullet made in a piece of board. I have one board here upon which I 
made some experiments [showing the board to the committee']. I found that 
there was very little difference in the explosive force of the two gases. 
I think that on careful experiment the water gas had slightly the greater 
explosive force. 
Q. That is, the depth of the holes in that board show the force with 
which the projectile was sent ? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And you think the water gas fully as explosive as coal gas, as a 
result of that experiment? A. I do not think the result showed any great 
difference. It was repeated several times; but there was no marked 
difference. 
Q. Have you made any investigations as to the effect upon the atmos- 
phere of the burning of the two gases ? A. I have analyzed the products 
of the two gases. The result is, that taking water gas and coal gas of prac- 
tically the same candle-power, in Toronto and Boston, that the Boston gas 
used a little more air and furnished a little less carbonic acid on combustion 
than the Toronto water gas. There was no very great difference in either 
gas, perhaps ten per cent, or something like that. The result is given in 
my report. 
Q. That is, the result of your investigation was that the burning of 
either gas made no difference in the atmosphere? A. I think very little 
difference. Perhaps the carbonic acid was a little more in burning water 
gas. I think that Prof. Morton said that water gas, compared with coal 
gas, would give about half more carbonic acid. 
Q. Then the burning of the water gas would vitiate the air more than 
the coal gas? A. Yes, sir, if the ventilation was not so good. 
Q. What is the effect of carbonic oxide upon the light of coal gas? 
A. I think the amount in coal gas does not count very much either way. 
When the carbonic oxide in gas is not more than ten per cent, we will say, 
it would not make much difference whether that carbonic oxide was replaced 
with hydrogen ; there would be very little difference in the light whether 
it was carbonic oxide or hydrogen, but it is not so good as marsh gas as 
regards giving light. 
Q. Then the more marsh gas there is in illuminating gas, the better it 
is for the light? A. Yes, sir, the better it is for the light as compared 
with carbonic oxide or hydrogen. 48 
Q. So that the more marsh gas coal gas has, the more light it gives? 
A. Yes, sir. The water gas contains the more illuminants for producing 
the same candle-power. 
Q. You have given your opinion in your annual report; but I will ask you 
what you think is the dangerous limit of carbonic oxide in gas? A. About 
all I have to base my opinion on is the experiments I have made with the 
various mixtures. In reading the coroners' reports in the newspapers, I 
saw there were very few deaths from breathing coal gas, and in a large city 
like New York there would sometimes in one year be no deaths at all, while 
with water gas I think it has run up to something like twenty a year. 
The experiments I made with animals seemed to show that the increased 
number of deaths is due to the increased amount of carbonic oxide in water 
gas. 
Q. You made some experiments with animals last year, similar to 
those made by Profs. Sedgwick and Nichols? A. Yes, sir; they were 
similar; but instead of using a room such as a person would naturally sleep 
in, I used an air-tight box, and passed a definite mixture over the animal 
experimented on, which was a rabbit in each case. He had no chance to 
breathe anything but gas and the products of combustion were taken away. 
I found that with naphtha gas, which contains no carbonic oxide at all, 
there was almost no effect discernible. I made one experiment this spring, 
and one last spring. In the experiments last spring I passed five per cent 
of naphtha gas, mixed with air, over the rabbit for two or three hours, 
and he did not seem to be affected at all; possibly a bit sleepy, but there 
was practically no effect. This year I made rather a more severe experi- 
ment. I took a very good rabbit, and passed a mixture of air and a very 
rich naphtha gas, containing more than fifty per cent of illuminants ; I 
passed this over the rabbit at the rate of seven feet an hour. I passed 
about ten or twelve feet over him, and it took about an hour and three 
quarters. The rabbit was just a trifle stupid ; but after he had been out two 
or three minutes he was apparently as good as ever. This mixture I passed 
over him was so very rich that after he breathed it the flame could be 
lighted and burnt. This naphtha gas contained over half its volume of 
illuminants. I think that proves conclusively that it is not the illuminants 
in gas that are poisonous. 
Q. (by Mr. Greenough) . You did not answer my question in regard to 
the danger limit. What would you recommend as to the amount of car- 
bonic oxide to be left in gas, as practically the dangerous limit? A. Well, 
it is a little hard to say just where the line should be drawn. I think the 
records show that the ordinary amount in coal gas is not particularly dan- 49 
gerous. I do not see any special reason for putting the limit much lower 
than ten per cent. If you put it down to six or seven, or thereabouts, it 
means only a good deal of extra work for the inspector. The inspector has 
got to inspect the gas every time for carbonic oxide, and it is more work 
to do that than it is to make the other tests all together. I think that 
the gas which contains six or eight or ten per cent of carbonic oxide is 
not specially dangerous. 
Q. Of course it would be desirable, as I understand it, to have all the 
carbonic oxide taken out; but is there any practical danger in leaving eight 
or ten per cent of carbonic oxide in gas as it is delivered to-day? A. No, 
sir; that is what I thought, and recommended. 
Q. You went out West, this summer? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And made some tests of gas in various places where they are deliv- 
ering water gas ? A. Yes, sir ; I did. 
Q. And those were put in your report? A. Some of them. 
Q. And you found the gas in Toronto to be of seventeen and a half candle- 
power? A. I think that was so ; Toronto seventeen and a half; that was 
the test made one day. 
Q. (by Mr. Hallett) . Have you been to Fredonia, N. Y. ? A. No, sir. 
Q. They are burning marsh gas there. A. It is a natural gas. 
Q. It is from marsh and decomposed wood? A. Yes sir. 
Q. (Mr. Greenough). I see you make reference to the practicability of 
taking carbonic oxide out of water gas. What does this mean? A. 
Water gas consists of two parts. There is the pure water gas, a mixture 
of hydrogen and carbonic oxide, and there is naphtha gas. The naphtha 
gas is not really water gas, but they use it with water gas to get the light. 
You can make a poor water gas without any great amount of carbonic ox- 
ide in it, and you can make a naphtha gas separate, and add the two to- 
gether, and in that way you get the light. 
Q. You make a new vehicle to carry the illuminants? A. Yes, sir; 
but you make the illuminants and the gas separately. After the illumi- 
nants are once in, I do not know any way to get the carbonic oxide out. 
You would have to take out all the illuminating power in order to take out 
the carbonic oxide. 
Q. But you can make a different kind of vehicle to carry the naphtha 
gas, which gives the light? A. Yes, sir ; instead of making the gas from 
hydrogen and carbonic oxide, you would make it principally from hy- 
drogen. 
Q. And then put in the illuminants? A. Yes, sir. 50 
Q. But that is not taking the carbonic oxide out of water gas ; it is 
making practically a different gas? A. That is what it amounts to. 
Q. (by Mr. Dillaway). Mr, Hinman, when was this restriction placed 
in the law which provides that there shall not be any gas made that contains 
more than ten per cent of carbonic oxide? A. The restriction was put in 
in 1880. 
Q. Well, now, did you procure the putting in of that restriction? A. 
I think I am responsible for it. I prepared the bill, and reported it to the 
committee. 
Q. When were you appointed inspector? A. In 1871. 
Q. And it was not until 1880 that you thought fit to attend to this mat- 
ter of carbonic oxide? A. Well, in regard to the bill of 1880, Mr. Web- 
ster, a member of the Committee on Mercantile Affairs, or Manufactures, I 
do not remember which it was, came to my office and said he had read my 
report, and seen that I had made certain recommendations covering 
changes in the law ; that he thought well of those recommendations, and if 
1 would get up a bill embodying them, he would bring it before the com- 
mitteee, and see what the prospect was of having it passed. In making up 
the bill for that purpose, I had to give some attention to the quantity of 
carbonic oxide in gas. 
Q. Was there anything in the report that mentioned carbonic oxide? 
A. No, sir ; not in that report. 
Q. Then Mr. Webster did not gather anything about carbonic oxide 
from that report? A. No, sir. 
Q. Now, did you make any experiments regarding carbonic oxide? A. 
I did not. 
Q. Did you make any experiments in 1880 regarding carbonic oxide, or 
when did you begin to make experiments to see whether the recommendation 
was according to your own knowledge or not? A. The first experiments 
I made were last year. 
Q. In 1882, do you remember reporting that you had not made any 
experiments on this subject? A. I do. 
Q. And you did not make any yourself, you say, before the water-gas 
hearing? A. While it was going on I think I made them. 
Q. Now, when you had this matter of carbonic oxide under considera- 
tion, in 1880, did you confer with anybody to ascertain the danger limit? 
A. No, sir. • 
Q. How came you to fix the limit at ten per cent? A. Well, I knew 
about what amount of carbonic oxide was in coal gas, and I saw that that 
was comparatively harmless, and I fixed it at ten per cent as a round num- 51 
ber, and as a number that would not require me to make an examination 
for carbonic oxide every time I made one for coal gas. 
Q. Then you fixed it at ten percent for your own convenience ? A. 
That was, as I say, one of the reasons, but not the principal reason. 
Q. You made no experiments to see whether ten was a safe percentage 
to have, or the danger line, or not? A. I knew about what coal gas con- 
tained, and I knew from reading the papers that there had been very few 
deaths from coal gas. 
Q. AV hat was the usual percentage that coal gas contained at that time? 
A. Something like six or six and a half. 
Q. And you thought ten was safe, because coal gas contained six? A. 
Something like that. 
Q. That was a scientific mode of ascertaining it, in your opinion? A. 
The limit had to be set somewhere, hadn't it? 
Q. But was that the scientific mode of ascertaining it? A. I stated 
that I did not wish to make an examination for carbonic oxide every time 
I made an examination of coal gas. 
Q. Then in making a statute on a scientific subject, which affects the 
Jiealth of the people, you only considered yourself and your labor in making 
the analysis of gas, and that was your idea of putting the limit at ten per 
cent, or any other limit? A. I think there would be no great harm in 
using gas of fifteen per cent of carbonic oxide. 
Q. Had you any idea of what the effect of using it with fifteen per cent 
was? A. It would be somewhat more dangerous. 
Q. In your opinion how much carbonic oxide could be in a room 
without endangering life? A. I should say about one half of one per 
cent. 
Q. Your experiments show that? A. Something like that. 
Q. Your experiments show that one half of one per cent would have 
an effect on human life? A. I have made no experiments on human 
life. 
Q. Well, what per cent would have an effect on human life? A. I do 
not know of any experiments on human life ; but reasoning from the effects 
upon animals, I say that it shows that somewhere about one half to one per 
cent is dangerous to the life of animals ; and reasoning from that we infer 
the same in regard to human life. 
Q. On what animals have you made experiments? A. Rabbits. 
Q.. Do you know how many cubic feet of air an animal breathes at each 
inhalation? A. No, sir. 
Q. Then how can you tell how much effect it will have if you don't know 52 
how much an animal breathes, and how can you compare it if you don't 
know how much a human being breathes? A. I let him breathe a gas not 
containing carbonic oxide, and then I let him breathe at the same rate a 
gas with carbonic oxide. 
Q. But I ask you how much knowledge have you of the amount of air 
that a rabbit breathes? A. I judge of the amount by analogy, as to the 
amount a human being breathes. 
Q. But you don't know how much he inhales? A. No, sir; not pre- 
cisely. 
Q. Do you consider that experiment practically worth anything? A. 
Yes, sir; I do. 
Q. In determining the effect upon human life? A. I do. 
Q. Do you mean to say that your experiment on a rabbit shows any- 
thing of the effect at all upon human beings, except in the most general way? 
A. We know from experiments that the effects upon animals and human 
beings agree. 
Q. Please to stick to the rabbit for a minute. Do your experiments on 
rabbits show anything, except in the most general way, that carbonic oxide 
is a poison, and what is the danger line, and how much it will take to poi- 
son a human being? A. You can't tell from experiments on a rabbit how 
much it will take to poison a human being. 
Q. Now, is it not a fact that ammonia and sulphur are deleterious and 
injurious to meters?. A. To a certain extent. 
Q. Have you not so reported? A. I have. 
Q. I am reading from your report of 1878. 
" Ammonia is objectionable, because it gets on the meters, causing them 
to register incorrectly ; and the change is usually against the consumer. 
It also corrodes the fixtures, and in some instances produces nitric acid, 
when burned." Haven't you complained in all your reports that ammonia 
was not sufficiently removed, up to two or three years ago? A. I have 
referred to some companies. 
Q. The companies about Boston ? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And you report now that this matter is not sufficiently removed ? 
A. I do. 
Q. This matter affects the fixtures? A. That is a minor point. It 
affects the brass and causes the cocks to turn hard. 
Q. It is an injury to the fittings? A. They are brass. 
Q. It is an injury to the joints? A. I don't know. 
Q. You have not reported on anything of that kind? A. No, sir; I 
don't know that I have. 53 
Q. Now, you have been travelling in the West, and you gave the result 
of your trip in the report? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That is the trip you asked the Commonwealth to pay the expense 
of? A. Yes, sir ; I thought they might pay it. 
Q. And they gave you leave to withdraw ? A. I understood so. 
Q. In your trip did you make any investigation to ascertain the percent- 
age of carbonic oxide in the different gases you analyzed? A. Yes, sir; 
that is what I went for. 
Q. And what else did you ascertain ? A. The candle-power. 
Q. What else? A. I got the general composition of the gas. 
Q. Did you make any investigations to find out whether water gas 
killed people or not? A. I asked one or two people. I did not have any 
great amount of time to go into that matter. 
Q. How many places did you go to? A. I should think ten or a 
dozen. 
Q. Is the list of them in your report? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What page, do you remember? A. There are ten; Rochester, 
Toronto, Chicago, Lancaster, Harrisburg, Wilkesbarre, Scranton, St. 
Louis, Washington, and Baltimore. 
Q. Well, now, you went to these places, and where did you get your 
samples of gas? A. From the hotels where I stopped. 
Q. Did you analyze it there? A. I made an approximate determina- 
tion as to what the amount of carbonic oxide was. 
Q. At the hotel? A. Right at the hotel. 
Q. Did you ascertain the amount of candle-power? A. Yes, sir; I 
did. 
Q. You did not make any inquiries as to the effect water gas had upon 
human life? A. I did not. 
Q. You did not make any inquiries to determine its effect upon human 
life? A. I thought it had been determined. 
Q. Where has it been determined? A. I think by the records of peo- 
ple who die in New York, Brooklyn, and Baltimore. 
Q. Were those the only places where you had any record of deaths 
from water gas? A. I have seen some statements about Toronto. 
Q. Did you make any inquiries to see whether these records were true or 
not? A. I did not. 
Q. Then the result of your trip was to ascertain the candle-power of 
the gas and the carbonic oxide in it? A. And these other gases. 
Q. The other gases contained in combustion? A. That is what I 
started out to find. « 54 
Q. And you did not ascertain about the effect upon the public health ? 
A. Not in that trip ; no, sir. 
Q. Well, now, take this experiment you have made here with this 
Do you mean to say that such a result scientifically shows whether water 
gas is more or less explosive than coal gas ? A. I do not see what other 
interpretation can be drawn from it. 
Q. And you are willing to state from the result of that experiment that 
one gas is as explosive as the other? A. Pretty nearly. In all experi- 
ments there is a variation from the exact mean. I do not say that is the 
exact mean. I made several trials, and that appeared to be the result. 
Q. Scientific experiment then is a matter of guess-work? A. No, 
sir. That is not intended to register exactly, but it shows pretty nearly. 
Q. What does it show? A. It shows that the explosive force of one 
gas is pretty nearly equal to that of the other. 
Q. How nearly equal? A. Except as to the error in the experiment. 
Q. Now you think that is a satisfactory result? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What causes the water gas to explode? A. On account of the 
combustible gases which it contains. 
Q. What combustible gases? A. Hydrogen, carbonic oxide, marsh 
gas, and the illuminants. 
Q. Which is the most explosive? A. I think hydrogen will take fire 
the quickest. 
Q. Which would have the most explosive force? A. I think hydrogen 
would take fire the quickest. 
Q. Which would have the most explosive force? A. Reckoned 
from 
Q. By the quickness of taking fire? A. It would depend upon 
what you take as a unit of comparison. If you take one foot of hydrogen 
mixed with the proper amount of air, and one foot of marsh gas mixed 
with its proper amount of air, the marsh gas would produce more than 
three times as much force as a cubic foot of hydrogen would. But if you 
reckoned upon a cubic foot of the explosive mixture, after the hydrogen 
and marsh gas were mixed with air, there would not be anything like that 
difference. 
Q. Now, what are the explosive gases in coal gas? A. They are prac- 
tically the same as in water gas. 
Q. Don't you think the gas which has the same relative quantity of 
hydrogen and a larger quantity of marsh gas, would be more explosive than 
when it contained the same quantity of hydrogen and a less quantity of 
marsh gas? A. That would depend on the nature of the other gases. 55 
Q. Take those two gases first. A. Do you mean to ask which is the 
more explosive, marsh gas or hydrogen? 
Q. I mean to take both gases, hydrogen and marsh gas, each having 
the same quantity of hydrogen, and another having a larger quantity of 
hydrogen, which would be the more explosive? A. The explosive force 
of the mixture containing marsh gas, if you reckon upon one cubic foot of 
each gas, but if you reckon on equal volumes of explosive mixture, there 
would be little difference. 
Q. Now, suppose one contains more hydrogen and the other more marsh 
gas, with the same quantity of carbonic oxide, and the same quantity of 
hydrogen and nitrogen? A. It would depend upon what the other things 
are made up with. 
Q. But take it with the same proportions? A. But you cannot have 
a greater proportion of hydrogen and marsh gas. 
Q. Well, sir, will you please tell us how you make it out when coal gas 
has a larger percentage of hydrogen and marsh gas, and a smaller percent- 
age of carbonic oxide, and you cannot tell us which is the more or less ex- 
plosive? A. I understood you to say, if you had a gaseous mixture of 
one gas containing a larger percentage of hydrogen and marsh gas, and the 
same percentage in the other mixture. 
Q. No ; I did not put that question at all. Now do you know of any 
explosions that have occurred from the use of water gas? A. I have 
read of some. 
Q. What have you read of? One at St. Johnsbury, Vt. 
Q. What others? A. I don't recollect any. 
Q. Have you ever read of any explosions from coal gas? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Quite a number of them? A. Quite a number. 
Q. They have happened rather frequently? A. Yes, sir; you might 
say frequently, - every little while. 
Mr. C. P. Greenough. -I will now offer the following letters and names 
of people who died from the use of illuminating gas in New York. The 
lists of deaths are not kept by the coal-gas companies. The record of deaths 
is kept by the health department in New York City. I wrote to the chief 
of the health department, and received these letters from him : - 56 
CHARLES P. GREENOUGH, Esq. 
Deaths by Asphyxia from Inhalation of Illuminating Gas. 
Accidental. 
Sturtevant House 1 
Leggat's Hotel 1 
Ashland House 1 
38 Cherry Street 2 
102 West Street 1 
288 8th Avenue 1 
244 West 27th Street 1 
Equitable Gas Works while pumping 1 
162 East 94th Street 1 
Brevoort House 1 
115 East 9th Street 1 
Summit Hotel 1 
49-53 West 57th Street 2 
Northern Hotel 1 
Van Dyke House 1 
60 West Street 1 
Total accidental deaths 18 
Suicidal Deaths. 
109 West 25th Street 1 
Dear Sir, - I give you the information above of deaths from illuminat- 
ing gas during the year 1884. How many of these deaths were from water 
or coal gas I am unable to state. The investigations are made by the 
coroners, and to them you will have to make the inquiry ; their address is 
15 Chatham Street. 
Dr. J. H. Raymond, Health Commissioner of Brooklyn, N. Y., sub- 
mitted a report to the Common Council of that city on illuminating gas, 
and the amount of cubic feet used in New York and Brooklyn, together 
with the deaths in both cities from coal and water gas, giving names, etc' 
I think he would send you the report on application. 
E. G. Love, Ph. D., gas examiner, Department of Public Works, 31 
Chambers Street, will probably be able to give you any information about 
the gas we use that you desire. 
Very respectfully yours, etc., 
JOHN T. NAGLE, M. D. 57 
CHARLES P. GREENOUGH, Esq. 
Suffocation by Illuminating Gas in New York. 
First quarter, 1883. Putnam House, 4th Avenue 1 
" " " St. Stephen's Hotel, 11th Street and University 
Place 1 
" " " 48 Chatham Street 1 
" " " 32 Bowery 1 
Second " " 200 West 57th Street 1 
" " " Summit House (suicide) 1 
Third " " Illuminating Gas, 178 South Street 1 
" " " 93 Bowery (suicide) 1 
Fourth " " 45 Bowery 1 
" " " 20 Bowery 1 
" " " Bowery Hotel 1 
" " " 98 Barclay Street 1 
" " " 235 Canal Street 1 
Total 13 
Yours, etc., 
JOHN T. NAGLE. 
Mr. Greenough : 
These letters merely give the places where the accidents occurred. The 
names and dates I found in reports in the New York Tribune and Herald; 
some in the Gas-Light Journal, and some in the Boston Herald. Knowing 
the place where the accident occurred, those reports gave me the date and 
name, and an account of how the accident happened. All of New York 
City below Grand Street, being supplied solely with water gas, by looking 
at the place where the accident occurred I could tell it was caused by water 
gas if it happened in any street below Grand Street. 
RESUME. 
Years. 
Deaths. 
Injuries not Fatal. 
1880 
12 
8 
1881 
19 
14 
1882 
23 
22 
1883 
20 
22 
1884 
19 
20 
1885 to March 12 
7 
6 
100 
92 
Accidents from the Use of Water Gas in New York City. 58 
Deaths from the Use of Coal Gas in New York City. 
Years. 
Number. 
1880 
1 
1881 
3 
1882 
2 
1883 
0 
1884 
2 
8 
Consumption of coal gas in New York in 1884.. .2,763,000,000 cubic feet. 
" " water gas " " ...2,583,000,000 " 
Deaths in Boston from the Use of Coal Gas. 
Years. 
Number. 
1878.... 
2 
1880.... 
. • 
0 
1881.... 
0 
1882.... 
1 
1883.... 
0 
1884.... 
•••I •••••• 
0 59 
Names. 
Locality. 
Authority. 
Feb. 
19, 
George Hall, 
North River Hotel, 
Dr. Nagle, 
New York Tribune. 
cc 
23, 
Unknown man, 
Northern Hotel, 
CC 
March 
1, 
Unknown man, 
Joseph Carter, 
Frank's Hotel, GO West Street, 
II 
New York Post. 
cc 
11, 
Van Dyke House, 
ll 
Gas Journal, New York Post. 
April 
(C 
26, 
George E Ewing, 
Brevoort House, 
ll 
New York Herald. 
26, 
7, 
16, 
John Ford, 
Ellen G. Smith, 
Minnie Hills, ? 
Caroline Dittenhoefer, $ 
Summit House, 
30 Third Avenue, 
49 West 35th Street, 
ll 
New York Herald. 
May 
u 
Dr. Nagle, 
Gas Journal. 
July 
5, 
Hannah Schissler, 
162 East 94th Street, 
Dr. Wilkie's report, 
Boston Herald. 
Oct. 
22, 
Daniel Flynn, 1 
Pete Coleman, J 
38 Cherry Street, 
Dr. Nagle, 
Chambers St. Hospital. 
Nov. 
1, 
Mr. Crawford, 
Central Hotel, 102 West St., 
ll 
Gas Journal. 
23, 
Mary O'Rourke, 
288 Eighth Avenue, 
11 
New York Herald. 
Dec. 
3, 
M. L. Paul, 
Sturtevant House, 
<4 
New York Times. 
u 
6, 
Francis Rosenbauer, 
Leggatt's Hotel, 44 Chatham St., 
ll 
Gas Journal. 
u 
21, 
John Kelly, 
1st Avenue and 40th Street, 
ll 
New York Times. 
cc 
31, 
A. P. Bloomfield, 
Ashland House, 
ll 
Gas Journal. 
<< 
31, 
Unknown man, 
115 East 9th Street, 
Dr. Nagle's report, 
Name. 
Locality. 
Authority. 
Jan 
6, 
Christine Kerswurm, 
215 Canal Street, 
Gas Journal. 
8, 
Conrad Kuhn, 
Joseph Sweeny, 
Henry Gilseck, ) 
Van Dyke House, 
New York Tribune. 
March 
2, 
58 Beach Street, 
Chambers Street Hospital. 
U 
10, 
Herman Leinester, > 
Carl Witte, J 
College Place Hotel, 
Chambers Street Hospital. 
U 
11, 
W. H. Walters, 
Corner Bayard St. and Bowery, 
New York Post. 
May 
16, 
Lena Shepard, 
53 West 47th St., Cable's Hotel, 
Gas Journal. 
June 
8, 
C. W. Drew, 
141 Fulton Street, 
Chambers Street Hospital. 
July 
9, 
Chester Poland, 
Chambers Street Hospital. 
Oct. 
8, 
Jacob Haas, 
125 West Street, 
Gas Journal. 
Nov. 
8, 
Breen, 
New England Hotel, 
Gas Journal. 
u 
9, 
Jacob Katz, 
New England Hotel, 
New York Hospital. 
u 
29, 
Mrs. Mary Scott and 5 children, 
440 Greenwich Street, 
New York Times. 
Dec. 
13, 
Alex. Smith, 
66 New Church Street, 
Chambers Street Hospital. 
INJURIES, NOT FATAL, FROM USE OF WATER GAS IN NEW YORK CITY IN 1884. 
DEATHS FROM USE OF WATER GAS IN NEW YORK CITY IN 1884. 60 
DEATHS FROM USE OF WATER GAS IN NEW YORK CITY IN 1883. 
Name. 
Locality. 
Authority. 
Jan. 10, 
Andrew L. Culver, 
112 West St., 
New York Sun. 
" 20, 
Arthur Scholfield, 
Hotel St. Stephen, 
Dr. Nagle. N. Y. Sun. 
" 27, 
Frank M. Tornowska, 
30 Bowery, 
Dr. Raymond's Report. 
1st Quar. 
Unknown man, 
32 Bowery, 
Dr. Nagle. 
March 1, 
William Lawrence, 
Putnam House, 4th Ave., 
Dr. Nagle. N.Y. Herald. 
March 17, 
William Mulcahey, 
48 Chatham St., 
Dr. Nagle. 
April 5, 
Lizzie Hoag, 
200 West 57th St., 
Dr. Nagle, Roosevelt Hospital. 
May 4, 
Emmanuel Miller, 
313 West 23d St., 
New York Herald. 
" 18, 
Anson G. Gurney, 
Fall River Boat, 
New York Herald. 
" 2Q, 
Eliz. W. Nauschwitz, 
Summit Hotel, Bowery, 
Dr. Nagle. 
Sept. 11, 
F. Leighton, 
Spencer House, 93 Bowery, 
Dr. Nagle. N.Y.Herald. 
" U, 
Karl A. Karstel, 
178 South St., Beyer's Hotel, 
Dr. Nagle. N. Y. Herald. 
" 11, 
Louis Gareurer, 
178 South St., Beyer's Hotel, 
N. Y. Herald, Sept. 13. 
Oct. 17, 
H. Greenberg, 
Hartmann's Hotel, 47 Bowery, 
Gas Journal. 
" 17, 
Gustave Plunger, 
395 Bowery, 
Gas Journal. 
" 25, 
Frederick C. Burrhus, 
Everett House, 
Dr. Nagle. N. Y. Herald. 
" 28, 
James Courtney, 
Hotel Bowery, 
Dr. Nagle. N. Y. Herald. 
4th Quar. 
ic 
Unknown man, 
45 Bowery, 
Dr. Nagle. 
AC 
20 Bowery, 
Dr. Nagle. 
ll 
u 
235 Canal St., 
Dr. Nagle. 61 
Mr. Greenough. - Above Grand Street there are three or four kinds of 
gas used. The only way I could find out about those cases was by getting 
a man to go and inquire at the places. He found exactly what company 
they got their gas from. If they were supplied from the Harlem Gas Com- 
pany, they got coal gas ; and if from the Municipal Company, they got 
water gas. Of course they knew nothing about the object of his errand, 
and answered the questions just as they would any civil question. In that 
way I have made up the list, which I think is correct. It is of course sub- 
ject to error, like all lists of this kind ; but I think it is as correct as it can 
be made, and the result is very curious. 
Mr. Crane. - Now, in regard to those pipes in Yonkers. How could 
they be laid in the street without the officer knowing which was the proper 
company to repair the pipes? 
Mr. C. P. Greenough. - The company cannot always tell themselves. 
If a large number of companies put their pipes into the same narrow street, 
the gas companies cannot tell their own pipes, unless they have an accurate 
plan. In London, there were at one time seven companies which had pipes 
in the same narrow streets, and one company attached a pipe to the pipe of 
one of the other companies, and sucked gas from it for a year before it was 
found out. 
March 25, 1885. 
Mr. C. P. Greenough.-I now present to the committee the report 
of Prof. Max Von Pettenkofer, the most eminent chemist in Germany, 
giving an account of the examination made under his orders, to which I 
I referred. 
" Gas Poisoning," by Max Von Pettenkofer. 
Extract. 
" If we now ask why it is that illuminating gas is so poisonous, we shall 
learn, from the experimental investigations of Orsila, that it is owing to its 
strength in carbonic oxide, which is also the poison of the so-called fire- 
damp. 
The quantity of carbonic oxide varies in different gases, and one is, there- 
fore, more dangerous than another. Anthracite coal gas usually contains 
ten per cent, oil gas seventeen, peat gas twenty, and wood gas tJhirty. 
Coal gas is at present the kind generally used in the lighting of cities, and 
this has indeed, very fortunately, the smallest quantity of carbonic oxide. 
The other component parts of illuminating gases are the so-called irre- 62 
' spirable gases, that is to say, gases which supply no air to the lungs, but 
they are not directly poisonous- 
Dr. Max Gruber has proved that a large quantity of gas, from which the 
carbonic oxide has been removed, may be administered without fatal re- 
sults to animals which are very sensitive to the admixture of a very 
small quantity of carbonic oxide with the air they breathe. It would be, 
therefore, of the greatest hygienic value if means applicable on a large scale 
coull be devised for the removal of carbonic oxide from illuminating gases, 
means similar to those which have been devised for the removal of sulphu- 
retted hydrogen through hydrate of peroxide of iron, and of carbonic acid 
through hydrate of lime. So long, however, as such a result is not at- 
tained, we must regard every unignited gas as dangerous to health and 
life. 
Another weighty question, which can only be solved through scientific 
experiment, is, in what quantity is carbonic oxide dangerous in the air we 
breathe? In this direction, Gruber has made, at the Scientific Institute, in 
Munich, some decisive experiments upon animals, as well as upon himself. 
The carbonic oxide works, in the first place, upon the blood corpuscles, 
which we may regard, for the most part, as a combination of hematine glob- 
ules with the carbonic acid of the air. From this supplanting of carbonic 
acid occurs a combination of carbonic oxide and hematine globules, which 
renders, in even very small quantities, the blood unserviceable for the prt - 
cesses of life. 
It has hitherto been supposed that the respiration of even the smallest 
quantity of carbonic oxide would produce symptoms of poisoning, pro- 
vided it was continued long enough to allow the carbonic oxide to increase 
in the blood to the requisite quantity. But Gruber has shown that our 
organism possesses the means whereby to rid itself of a small quantity of 
carbonic oxide ; it happens, therefore, that no increase of it in the blood 
occurs through the continued respiration of it, and that the gravity of ae 
symptons of poisoning are proportional, not to the duration of the respira- 
tion of the carbonic oxide, but solely to the concentration of carbonic oxide 
in the respired air. 
Gruber invented, for his experiments upon animals, an apparatus which 
enabled him not only to regulate at will the amount of carbonic oxide to be 
conveyed to them, but to save them from any other constraint than confine- 
ment in roomy and comfortable glass cases, into which the air, charged with 
a certain quantity of carbonic oxide, flowed as into a completely and equally 
ventilated 100m. He found that when less than one twentieth of one per cent 
of the poisonous gas was mixed with the air, there was no perceptible discom- 63 
fort in either animals or men. He once kept a rabbit for sixty-six consecutive 
hours in such an atmosphere, without noticing the least disturbance of the 
animal's comfort or of its appetite. Gruber himself bieathed, for a period 
of three hours on each of two successive days, an atmosphere charged with 
0.021 and 0.024 per cent of carbonic oxide without feeling the least dis- 
comfort or injurious effect. 
But it is otherwise when the quantity of carbonic oxide is slightly in- 
creased. When it is between 0.07 and 0.08 per cent, the condition of the 
animal is no longer normal. In a short time its breathing becomes quick 
and dull, and it remains as quiet as possible, every motion producing a 
considerable increase of respiratory activity. But no other disturbances 
result from the respiration of such a concentration of carbonic oxide, even 
if it be continued for days. 
If the carbonic oxide is increased from 0.08 to one fifth of one per cent, 
other pathological symptoms occur. The breathing is so accelerated as to 
become difficult; the mouth remains open ; the nostrils, and the whole body 
move with each respiration. To the difficulty in breathing are added lassi- 
tude, and uncertainty of movement. 
If the concentration of the poisonous gas remain at one fifth of one per 
cent, the above phenomena, after orfce being established, undergo no in- 
crease, even if the experiment be continued for nine or ten days. The an- 
imals, moreover, recover in the fresh air. 
When the concentration is still further increased, the animals are no 
longer able to stand upright, they sink down, and lie in a state of deepest 
stupefaction and in the most uncomfortable positions. From time to time 
they raise themselves and endeavor, by badly concerted movements, to 
attain an upright position, but they soon fall down again, only to renew 
their efforts after a long interval. When the per cent is from 0.2 to 0.4 
the difficulty in breathing becomes secondary to the stupefaction, but even 
then the animals completely recover when carried into the fresh air. 
It is only when the quantity of carbonic oxide is four tenths of one per 
cent and above, that the poisoning becomes uncommonly rapid and deadly, 
death ensuing after from thirty to sixty minutes of great disturbance, - 
risings and fallings, writhings and convulsions. 
Carbonic oxide works at first, it is true, upon the blood, but the symp- 
toms of poisoning often result from the effect of the carbonic oxide in the 
blood upon the brain and spinal marrow. The respiratory centre in the 
brain is next affected, then follows the weakness and the uncertainty of 
voluntary movements, and finally convulsions and death, when the concen- 
tration of carbonic oxide is sufficiently large. 64 
Gruber experimented only upon rabbits and chickens, with an extract of 
carbonic oxide, but all who have had an opportunity to observe cases of 
poisoning by carbonic oxide, whether through fire-damp, that is to say, 
through the premature closure of the smoke-dampers of a stove, or through 
illuminating gas, know how great a likeness there is between the symptoms 
shown by men and by animals. Men also endure for a long time an inju- 
rious but not deadly quantity of the oxide, and, for the most part, recover 
speedily and completely when brought into the air. 
A concentration as small as from 0.05 to 0.08 per cent is, without doubt, 
felt by human beings. We find such an atmosphere heavy, that is, per 
ceptibly difficult to be breathed ; we experience headache ; we seek to leave 
a room which contains such an atmosphere, or we endeavor to supply it 
with better air; we open a window or a door, and we at once feel better. 
If we neglect to do this, and if the quantity of carbonic oxide is increased 
(say from 0.08 to 0.2 per cent) we, like the animals, experience difficulty in 
breathing, lassitude, and uncertainty of movement, the headache becomes 
severer, and vomiting frequently occurs. Such a degree of poisoning from 
carbonic oxide I myself once experienced, when, during one of my investi- 
gations with regard to the amount of free ventilation in our dwelling- 
houses, I generated carbonic acid in a room by means of a quick ignition of 
coal in a disconnected blast furnace, for the purpose of measuring the dimi- 
nution of carbonic acid within a given time, through the free entrance of 
fresh air. 
This was by all means the cheapest way to produce carbonic acid, but 
there came from the ignition of the coal, even when the blast-furnace drew 
well, some carbonic oxide. As I made these experiments nearly thirty 
years ago, I had not the least idea how small a quantity of the oxide was 
deleterious. In these experiments I always burned the same quantity of 
coal in the same blast furnace, and experienced from my earliest experi- 
ments no particular uneasiness ; but when, for the purpose of determining 
how much free ventilation would be diminished, I once closed all the joints 
and crannies of the windows, and even the keyholes of a room, I felt, even 
before the end of the experiment, very unwell; I breathed heavily; had 
severe headache; was unable to properly handle my apparatus; and had 
just presence of mind enough to open the door of the room and stagger 
into the entry, where, like the rabbits of Gruber, I sank down. But, like 
them, I soon recovered. 
I discovered from this experiment, after my experience with the gener- 
ated carbonic acid, that the free ventilation of the room was much dimin- 
ished, and that there was not only quite a large increase of carbonic acid 65 
in the air, but also a considerable increase of carbonic oxide. From that 
time forth I no longer generated the carbonic acid necessary for my investiga- 
tions from the cheap substance, but from compound carbonated nitrate, by 
means of oxjrgen, and was never again sick during an experiment, though 
the ventilation was often very imperfect. 
Severe headache is with men a very constant symptom of incipient 
poisoning from carbonic oxide, and one may assume that the brain is, with 
animals also,.affected. Gruber could not, it is true, ask his hares and 
chickens whether their heads ached, but there were indications that they 
did. 
From what has been shown, it may be assumed that the quantity of car 
bonic oxide which is fatal to animal life is likewise fatal to human; and 
that men can bear such a quantity no longer than Gruber's animals 
could, -that is, from thirty to sixty minutes only. 
These assumptions agree very well with the experiments accidentally 
made with men, which may for all intents and purposes be regarded as 
specially instituted investigations. 
In the above-mentioned case of the Caimi family there were during the 
night, in the same room with the mother and her two daughters, a bird and 
a little dog. The two girls and the bird were found dead ; the mother and 
the dog in a state of stupefaction. The mother, moreover, subsequently 
died, but the dog completely recovered. In a case reported by Dr. Wolff- 
berg (" Gas Poisoning from Broken Street Mains," by Dr. S. VVolffberg, 
private instructor in Bonn, Archives of Hygiene, Vol. I, p. 168), a cage 
containing a pair of birds was in the room. The sitting female was found 
still alive ; the male was dead. It seems, then, that men and warm-blooded 
animals, whether large or small, are veryOensitive to carbonic oxide gas. 
Individual differences are of no hygienic, but only of physiological and 
pathological interest, and there is, therefore, no need of my considering 
them closely." 
No evidence was offered by the remonstrants, and the hearing was de- 
clared closed, after arguments by W. E. L. Dillaway for the Bay State Gas 
Company, and Charles P. Greenough, Esq., for the petitioners.