The Water Gas Question.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 286, 22 November 1902, Page 1

The Water Gas Ques—tion.

Mr Watt, at the special meeting of the Council on Monday last, drew comparison between the Mayor's report and that of Councillor Nicol on their visits to Balclutha, in which Mr Nicol reported strongly in its favour and stated that there was only one person he found that bad anything Ito say against it, and.he was an j unsuccessful tenderer for the erection of the gas works and had never used the gas. Everyone else spoke in its favour. Mr Watt said it was unfortunate that the Mayor had entirely omitted to refer to the charges that had been made against the gas, and Mr Watt contended that the Mayor's report was not a correct one, as he had also omitted to mention ever having seen any cooking or heating gas stoves, although he saw a number in use both at the gas works, Mr Hogg's shop and rooms, and also in the Oddfellows' Lodge-room. He also omitted to mention gas engines, although he saw several in use in sizes of three and six horse-power. The quotations as to the number of people using the gas and the total amounts paid per month purporting to be given from the Gas Book, Mr Watt contended were misleading, as the May account did not give the total number of consumers,, whilo the June number given as 34 was only about half the number. And further, the Mayor stated that this was out of some 500 dwellings within the borough, while it seems there are, according to last census, only 225 huts and dwellings within the borough. Further, the statement made to the Mayor that a seven two-light burner cost 15s for

mantles in o;ie-month Mr Watt challenged as a deiib.arate falsehood, as he denied ever having a seven two-light burner in Balcl'utba since the gas had been, .installed, so that it was a gross fabrication ; neither bad it ever cost anyone 15s for 'mantles in one month for twenty Iburners, let alone two. Referring |to the Mayor's statement that he 'called on three what he termed ; important business places in Baljclutha who used acetylene, Mr Watt said be differed,'as one of these important business places was ouly a box, in size about 7ft by 9ft, wish one light, and Avhen usiug water gas previous to the works being burned his average gas bill was 9d for the month for gas. He quoted from a gas book where for September he had paid la 4d, while some three months arr&ars only 'amounted to 3s 6d. Mr Watt quoted cost of lighting four bridge (lamps with water gas and acetylene, January Is 3d, February 2s 6d, March, 3d 9d ; with acetylene, year previous, 26e, ...285,.a month, with the exception of February, which 'was £2.

Replying to the -'Mayor's, statements that the Oddfellows' Hall was lighted with four three-light burnerr', this was incorrect as there were only three three-light burners. Also that the mantles cost 15s a dozen. Mr Watt admitted that they did at one time, but could he (purchased in any town .in the colony at 6s a dozen, or, 7d to 8d each singly. The Town Clerk's statement as to cost of street lighting with gas was completely incorrect in every item, overstating the amount from 9s to 31 s each month. His comparison of cost, gas versus oil lamps, was also very far wrong, as the total amount received for the six months' gas was £2O 19s, or 4s -Jd per lamp per '.month', against •is 6d for oil lamps:; Gas lamps gave six times the light. Further referring to the fragility of mantles, and expense it had been stated that a new mantle was required at lease once a week for each lamp of which there are 17. That was 68 mantles a month, or 340 for the five months. iThe total number of mantles renewed on the Corporation's street lamps in seven months was only 33 and the total number used by the Corporation in seven months for every purpose was only 50, which was a considerable difference from 340. He denied that the mantles were troublesome or expensive or that any complaints had ever been made by those using them and stated he had written testimony from every one using them in Balclutha, and one and all, including six ex-mayors, six councillors, two editors, two doctors, three clergyman and four Justices of the I Peace, spoke highly in their favour. This, he considered, was the strongest evidence it was possible to produce, more especially when these gentlemen were expressing their actual experience in use of the gas for terms varying from two to over six years, and was therefore much more reliable information than that supplied to his Worship the Mayor by his informants, who never used the gas.