UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 Class 
 
 Book 
 
 Volume 
 
 Ja 09-20M 
 
SENATE'.. '; : Nti. 387. 
 
 €oimnonn»attl) of ilTaosaclju^ttts* 
 
 In Senate, June 10, 1869. 
 
 The Special Committee of the Senate, to whom was referred 
 the House Bill for the " Regulation of Gas Companies and 
 the better protection of Consumers of Gas," and the petition 
 of Messrs. Converse, Taylor & Co.Vnd others, in favor of the 
 passage of the bill, having attended^ to the duty assigned 
 them, beg leave to 
 
 REPORT: 
 
 The bill referred to your Committee is substantially the same 
 as one submitted to the Joint Committee on Mercantile Affairs, 
 which, after a very full and careful examination, received but a 
 single vote, — that of the gentleman offering the bill. It differs 
 from the original bill in only three points : the number of gas 
 consumers which shall be needed in order to insure the appoint- 
 ment of inspectors ; the manner in which the inspectors shall 
 be paid ; and the amount of impurity in the gas,— neither of 
 which variations is material in view of the more important ques- 
 tions involved in the other provisions of the bill. The real 
 question is the comparative value of the law now in force 
 throughout the State, and the proposed bill, which is limited to 
 only a part of the State. 
 
2 REGULATION OF GAS COMPANIES. [June, 
 
 Although all persons interested in the question were invited, 
 by notice in the papers, to appear before the Committee on Mer- 
 cantile Affairs, no one except the author of the bill appeared to 
 question the cffitjHjiqy. <jf: the; present law, nor was any doubt 
 thrown upon^ the* knoVIetfg^,: ability, fidelity and scrupulous 
 accuracy of tjie/ StalJi ; f as}:tec&H\.; ; W.hile it was conceded that 
 the present law "i§ susceptible ofi&rn*ej*dment, it was clear to the 
 Committee th^r^tl^Tov%U\\^;l^w has now been in force nearly 
 eight years, no iiicbhveftren<Se , » Aas yet arisen from any of its 
 real or supposed defects, and that if any amendments may here- 
 after become desirable they will be rather of the nature of an 
 extension of its provisions than of a change of its principles. 
 
 The bill submitted to your Committee proposes radical 
 changes in the manner of testing gas and meters, and carries 
 them out with a great variety of needless detail and expense. 
 The whole principle of the bill, if there is any principle in it, is 
 the burner, which was shown by abundant proof to be an untried 
 experiment with the gases of the State, and not known theoret- 
 ically or practically, as a just test for any one gas in the State. 
 
 The testimony of all experts, the experience shown by a most 
 extensive legislation on the subject in Great Britain, all reliable 
 evidence, pointed one way, — that the value of the gas is in 
 itself, and not in the burner, and that wherever legislation has 
 specified a burner, it was one strictly adapted to the gas which 
 was to be tried by it ; that the most recent legislation in Eng- 
 land had simply specified the grade of the gas and had left to 
 the inspectors the selection of the burner by which it was to be 
 tested ; and that there was no human possibility of adapting one 
 burner to ten, twenty or sixty gases, a large proportion of 
 which, though of similar illuminating power, were made from 
 different coals and were of different chemical combinations. 
 
 This point of a fixed burner is of more practical importance 
 than would appear at first sight. As an illustration of this it 
 was shown in evidence that a burner in the possession of the 
 Boston Gas-Light Company, like the one described in the bill, 
 when used by the State Inspector for the purpose of testing 
 Boston gas, reduced its value, which was from 18 to 20 candles, 
 below the standard of the proposed bill, and would make that 
 company absolutely liable to a fine of f 100 for each day that 
 they continued to make a gas which, as gas is commonly burned 
 
1869.] 
 
 senate—No. 387. 
 
 8 
 
 throughout the United States, is of the grade known as 18 to 20 
 candle gas, but which is at once reduced below 16 candles when 
 burned in the proposed burner, simply because that burner is 
 not suited to the consumption of 5 cubic feet of gas of a high 
 quality. In other words, in order to comply with the provisions 
 of the proposed bill they must reduce the quality of their gas to 
 such an extent that it can be used in a burner which is not a 
 fair test for the gas now made by them, and which is not in use 
 by any one of their consumers. The effect of this reduction in 
 the quality of the gas would be an increase in the amount of the 
 bills which their consumers would be called on to pay ; and to 
 provide by law that 5 cubic feet of gas consumed in this burner 
 should be equal to 16 candles would forever prevent the use of 
 gases of a higher illuminating power, because 5 feet of such 
 gases cannot be burned in this burner without smoking. 
 
 Since the hearings before the Committee on Mercantile. 
 Affairs, the Report of the State Inspector has been printed, giv- 
 ing much additional information as to the working of the pres- 
 ent law. From this it appears that there was in only three of 
 the cities and towns of the State sufficient curiosity or complaint 
 as to the quality of the gas supplied to them to lead to a special 
 application for the services of the Inspector. It also appears 
 from other inspections made for his own information, with such 
 test burners as he pleased, without the intervention of any 
 officer of any gas company, that he had tested " nearly all the 
 illuminating gases offered for sale by the companies in the State, 
 and in every case found them above the legal standard," and 
 that he had inspected most of the meters in use. 
 
 Your Committee are aware that denunciation of the extortions 
 of gas companies is a very simple and popular way to gain pub- 
 lic notoriety. Recent investigations in New York disclosed, on 
 the part of one corporation, enormous profits obtained by selling 
 gas of a low value at a high price. But, in justice to the Massa- 
 chusetts companies, it should be stated that no similar evidence 
 respecting their manufacture or their profits was offered to the 
 Committee. 
 
 In regard to the petitioners who have asked the passage of 
 the proposed law — for the reason it is better adapted for their 
 protection than the law of 1861 — it must be they did not give 
 the subject that careful consideration which all petitions should 
 
4 
 
 REGULATION OF GAS COMPANIES. [June, 
 
 receive before signatures are placed upon them. After the sig- 
 nature of N. B. Mansfield, follows, " provided they do not sell 
 out" showing evidently he did not know what he was signing. 
 One gentleman informed your Committee he " signed the peti- 
 tion to get rid of Mr. Nash, who presented it." 
 
 It is sufficient to say that no one can carefully compare the 
 present law, which applies to every gas consumer and every gas 
 company in the State, with the proposed substitute, which 
 leaves the whole subject of gas and meter inspection in one-half 
 of the State dependent upon the action or non-action of the city 
 or town authorities, and not see that the gas consumers are 
 better protected now than they would be under the proposed 
 bill, and that the justice which is done to the gas companies in 
 the law of 1861 is denied to them in this substitute. Your 
 Committee, desirous of obtaining all the information possible 
 on the subject of the proposed law, forwarded copies of the 
 same, with copies of the law as it now stands on the statute 
 book, to the following gentlemen, acknowledged as experts in 
 gas science in this country: — Professor Henry Wurtz, New 
 York; Professor Benjamin Silliman, New Haven; Professor 
 F. H. Storer, Boston; M. L. Callender, Esq., New York, 
 editor of " Gas-Light Journal." 
 
 Copy of Letter — addressed as above noted. 
 
 Boston, May 31, 1869. 
 Dear Sir : — We forward to your address by to-day's mail copies 
 of the law now in force in this State for the inspection of gas, gas 
 meters, &c., and of a substitute for it which has recently passed the 
 House of Representatives, and has been referred in the Senate to a 
 Special Committee consisting of the undersigned. So far as we can 
 ascertain, the opinion of experts here is against the proposed substi- 
 tute for the present law ; but as the matter is one which so largely 
 affects both gas consumers and gas companies, we are desirous of 
 obtaining the fullest information possible. Will you have the kind- 
 ness, therefore, at your earliest convenience, to give us the benefit 
 of your judgment on the following points? 
 
 1. Are you familiar with the testing of illuminating gas and the 
 legislation connected with the subject ? 
 
 2. Have you ever seen the burner described in the 5th section of 
 the proposed law, and which is called, we believe, the Birmingham 
 burner ? 
 
1869.] 
 
 SENATE — No. 387. 
 
 5 
 
 3. If you have seen it, have you ever tested any gas with it ? 
 
 4. Do you know whether it is, or is not, a fair test for a 16 candle 
 gas? 
 
 5. Supposing this burner to be adopted as a test burner, would 
 not the companies which make 18 to 20 candle gas be obliged to 
 reduce the grade of their gas, so that it could be tested by the 
 burner, and thereby increase the amount of gas consumed by each 
 customer ? 
 
 6. Do you know of any one burner by which gases of different 
 chemical combinations, but having an illuminating power of 16 
 candles, can be properly tested ? 
 
 7. Is it so easy and simple a matter to test the quality and purity 
 of gases, that cities and towns could, ordinarily, obtain inspectors 
 with the requisite scientific knowledge ? 
 
 8. Would the passage of the proposed law secure a uniform 
 inspection of gas throughout the State ? 
 
 9. In case of a dispute betAveen a gas company and an inspector 
 ought there not to be some appeal from his decision ? 
 
 10. In general, do you think that the interests of all parties con- 
 cerned would be better protected under the substitute than they 
 are under the present law ? 
 
 We remain, your friends truly, 
 
 Samuel D. Ckane, 
 J. G. Pollaed, 
 3Iassachusetts /Senate Committee. 
 
 The answers to the above will be found in the Appendix to 
 this Report, as will also be found the report [E] of a hearing 
 before a Committee of the House of Lords on the Hanley gas 
 bill ; extract from a paper by Dr. Lethcby [F] on the chemistry 
 of gas lighting, May 31, 1865 ; and extract from the report to 
 the court of common council [G] of the special gas committee 
 on the passage of the city of London gas bill, 1868. Also [H] 
 extract from the appendix to report from the select committee 
 on metropolis gas bill, 1867 ; correspondence [I] of your Com- 
 mittee with the Massachusetts State Inspector in relation to the 
 burner offered by Mr. Nash before the Committee, and the test 
 made in Mr. Nash's presence of the power of that burner to 
 burn a high grade of gas. 
 
 From the foregoing the Senate will receive the information 
 that no one kind of a burner is suitable to test the different 
 
6 
 
 REGULATION OP GAS COMPANIES. [June, 
 
 kinds of gas made by the different gas companies in this Com- 
 monwealth. The " Birmingham " burner was made for the gas 
 of the city of Birmingham, which was 14 candle gas, and it is 
 impossible to burn 5 feet per hour of a 20 candle gas without 
 smoking. Mr. Stimpson informs us he could pass but 4.25 
 cubic feet per hour through it without smoking, and when he 
 passed 5 cubic feet he had a long smokey flame eight inches 
 above the chimney. Your Committee are fully satisfied that 
 the bill is crude, inconsistent and unjust ; that its principles are 
 at variance with the results of all recent scientific investiga- 
 tions of this obscure subject, and that it ought not to pass. 
 
 SAMUEL D. CRANE, 
 J. G. POLLARD, 
 Special Commiltee of the Senate. 
 
1869.J 
 
 SENATE— No. 387. 
 
 7 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 [A.] 
 
 REPLY OF PROFESSOR WURTZ. 
 
 No. 26 Pine Street, New York, > 
 June 4, 1869. j 
 
 To the Honorable Committee of the Massachusetts State Senate. 
 
 Gentlemen : — I have the honor to submit replies to the questions you have 
 laid before me. 
 
 Your first question is : " Are you familiar with the testing of illuminating 
 gas, and the legislation on the subject V " In the former I claim to be an 
 expert. I assisted in drafting the bill recently proposed to the New York 
 Legislature for regulating illuminating gas. 
 
 Your second question is substantially : " Have you seen the so-called 
 Birmingham burner ? " 
 
 It has not, so far as I know, been used as a test burner in this country. It 
 is wholly unadapted, however, to burn, without smoke, gas of more than 13 or 
 14 candle power, chiefly in consequence of its small internal diameter, (but 
 half an inch at the top.) Our largest gas company, the Manhattan, whose 
 standard ranges about 15 candles, use a test burner which has a diameter of 
 throat of 0.66 inch. Considerable confusion is introduced into the printed 
 documents sent me by you, by designating this burner constantly as the 
 " parliamentary burner," whereas no general Act of Parliament specifies this 
 burner. 
 
 Third question. I have not tested gas with it. 
 
 Fourth question. It cannot be a fair test for such gas, for the plain reason 
 that it cannot supply air enough to burn properly a gas of this grade. 
 
 Fifth question. According to the general testimony of gas engineers, it is 
 impracticable to measure even 15 or 16 candle gas with a burner of these 
 dimensions, much less 18 or 20. Unless I strangely misapprehend or misin- 
 terpret, the whole proposed law, with section 5, would, without doubt, be 
 impracticable and inoperative. 
 
 Sixth question. The meaning of the question is not clear to me. If it is 
 meant to ask whether a burner exists which would indicate whether a special 
 gas would give 16-candle power, or more or less, with another burner, the 
 answer is No. The enormous difference in the indicating of different burners 
 has long been a matter of notoriety among those familiar with gas. For 
 
8 
 
 REGULATION OF GAS COMPANIES. [June, 
 
 example: The London Board of Gas Referees have recently adopted for low 
 grade gas a new Argand test burner, which gives in the proportion of 116- 
 candle power, while a common fish-tail burner gives but 89 ; but, with cannel 
 gas, they state that this proportion is more than reversed ; for while the new 
 Argand gives with this 100, the common fish-tail gives 118. It appears that 
 the Act of Parliament vaguely directs a 15 hole 5 foot Argand, with 7-inch 
 chimney, admitting the widest variation in internal diameter. Hence much 
 trouble and confusion regarding test burners. It has been claimed that a test 
 burner should be used similar to the burners most generally in use by the com- 
 munity. If so, the first step should be to ascertain what form of burner is in 
 most common use. Certainly not the Birmingham. Others claim that the 
 companies are entitled to use as a test such burner as suits their own gas best, 
 and that consumers should conform. These are mooted points, still requiring 
 much examination. If means were discovered of making high grade (say 
 18-candle) gas very cheaply, the common, cheap fish-tail, requiring no chim- 
 ney, would become the best burner for the consumer. It has occurred, also, 
 that the sixth question may have been intended to relate to the comparison 
 of different gases with the same burner at equal consumption of five feet per 
 hour. If so, the reply must still be most positively in the negative, as is 
 apparent from the facts already presented. 
 
 Seventh question. It is not. Suitable persons, under the proposed law, 
 could rarely, and, with no certainty, be obtained. Section 3 makes them 
 gas chemists and analysts. No test of capacity or qualification is mentioned- 
 In the minority report, salaries of $1,000 to $3,000 are mentioned. None 
 such could be obtained at the latter sum; few for any sum. One familiar 
 with the delicacies and difficulties of gas analysis, and the fact that many 
 chemists, skilful in other analysis, never acquire this, will look upon the 
 scheme as one of the bare possibilities of the future, but of a future still far 
 ahead. 
 
 Eighth question. The reply is included virtually in that to the last ques- 
 tion. Without uniformity of inspectors, how could there be any of the 
 inspection ? 
 
 Ninth question. Competent inspectors, on the basis proposed, should assign 
 such exact and conclusive reasons for their decisions, based upon experimental 
 tests, that no appeal could reasonably hold. 
 
 I believe that no system of inspection could be expected to become success- 
 ful and permanent unless placed under control of men whose high position in 
 the world of science would furnish an assurance of rectitude, efficiency and 
 incorruptibility; provided, also, with salaries of the most liberal amount. 
 Inspectors may then be but assistants. 
 
 Tenth question. I do not. Time and space limit me to but a few points. 
 
 Section 3 of the proposed law creates many instead of one central labora- 
 tory, provided with standard test apparatus, which latter provision I believe 
 to be essential. Who is to specify the nature of the test instruments, etc., 
 with which these many distinct laboratories are vaguely directed to be pro- 
 vided ? Shall each inspector select his own ? 
 
 There are no efficient or even specific regulations in the proposed law 
 regarding the highly important points of density, pressure, purity, permanency, 
 
1869.] 
 
 SENATE — No. 387. 
 
 9 
 
 etc. The mass of consumers are more interested in knowing that the article 
 is uniform and reliable in quality and purity, than even in getting an article 
 of a little higher grade, just as they prefer to burn a coal which is pure and 
 uniform to one of higher heating power, but ftill cf'sUpbur'and anti clinkers. 
 The proposed law would give them little assurance aWio purity and uniformity, 
 whilst the higher cost of more candle power would fall' upon them,-i-more 
 especially in small towns with few consum,eT3v> whore (awing to "the 1 smal 
 scale,) the cost of manufacturing is already large. - , • \ 
 
 The enforcement, uniformly, of a 16-candlec g&s ./cawnot bu^ be 'of vital 
 consequence to many of your producers, particularly those in inland towns 
 and localities not upon tide-water. Considering the distance of Massachusetts 
 from the coal-producing centres, and the severity of the climate in winter, 
 which tends so powerfully to depreciate the gas, I cannot but look upon the 
 adoption of such a regulation throughout the State of Massachusetts as hasty, 
 indeed highly unjust, legislation. 
 
 In conclusion, after an exhaustive review of all questions involved, I must 
 state my conviction that the proposed law is full of impracticabilities, and that 
 its adoption would be a misfortune both to consumers and producers, and a 
 re ! rograde step into the dark ages of gas legislation. 
 
 I am, gentlemen, with high respect, 
 
 HENRY WURTZ, 
 General and Analytical Chemical Expert. 
 
 Boston, June 9, 1869. 
 
 Since the above was written, I have had an opportunity to test an authentic 
 Birmingham burner, made by Sugg, of London, and obtained from him by 
 Mr. Greenough, of the Boston Gas-Light Company. Its principal measure- 
 ments I found as follows : — 
 
 Diameter across the top, 1.1 inch. 
 
 « of throat, 0.5 " 
 
 " of apertures, 0.05 " 
 
 The Boston city gas, of about 20-candle power from a suitable burner, at 
 this, t time, when^passed at the rate of five feet per hour through this burner, 
 made a long smoky flame streaming eight or ten inches above the top of the 
 7-inch chimney. When reduced to four feet flow, the candle power, by the 
 photometer, corrected to five feet, was just 17 candles, a result virtually 
 identical with that of Professor Silliman with the same burner. Other 
 observations were made closely corresponding with the opinions of this pro- 
 posed test burner, set forth by me before, and which were so closely accordant 
 with those already reported independently by Professor Silliman, that I shall 
 not occupy space with them here. Respectfully, 
 
 HENRY WURTZ. 
 
10 REGULATION OF GAS COMPANIES. [June, 
 
 - • REPLY/ OF PROFESSOR SILLIMAN. 
 
 ' 1 ■-. , Boston, June 7, 1869. 
 
 Hon.' (Sa^iTel D*. V8&A2m* 'Hop. J. G. Pollard, Massachusetts Senate 
 
 Committee. 
 
 Dear Sirs r-^-ln answer Jto your favor of the 31st of May, I have the 
 honor, after mature reflection, to answer as follows : To the first, second, 
 and third questions my answer is in the affirmative. To the fourth, fifth ? 
 sixth, seventh, and eighth questions, my answer is in the negative ; and with 
 your permission I will now proceed, as briefly as possible, to state my reason 
 for the opinion. The so-called Birmingham burner is a particular form of 
 Argand burner, adopted upon the recommendation of Dr. Letheby as best 
 adapted to develop the illuminating power of the gas in the city of Birming- 
 ham, England. The gas, possessed by the evidence before us an illuminating 
 power of fourteen candles, as required by the Act of Parliament. But this 
 burner is not adapted to gas of a different grade, and has never been 
 adopted by the gas referees for the city of London. I have applied this 
 burner as a means of testing the gas in Boston, Roxbury and Dorchester, in 
 company with the State Inspector for Massachusetts, to whose courtesy I was 
 indebted for the opportunity of using an authentic copy of this Birmingham 
 burner. 
 
 At Roxbury, I found the gas to possess a mean candle power of 16.10, 
 when tested by this burner. This gas appeared to me, and my judgment 
 was confirmed by that of the inspector, to be much better than a sixteen can- 
 dle gas, being in our judgment equal at least to eighteen candles. The con- 
 sumption during our examination was as nearly as possible five feet, (4.97) at 
 which point the flame tailed up badly — at least three inches above the chim- 
 ney. The burner was certainly very ill-adapted to develop the illuminating 
 power of this gas. 
 
 At Dorchester, the same burner developed a power of 14.68 candles ; and 
 when placed in contrast with a more common form of parliamentary burner, 
 the Birmingham burner is seen to be inferior, inasmuch as by the second the 
 power of the gas was recorded to 14.94. 
 
 In Boston, at the photometric rooms of the State Inspector, I had the op- 
 portunity to bring the Birmingham burner into comparison with an ordinary 
 form of Parliamentary Argand, and with the ordinary form of fish-tail in use 
 in this city. We found it impossible to consume much more than four cubic 
 feet of the Boston gas in the Birmingham burner, and even with this dimin- 
 ished consumption the flame " tails " badly above the top of the chimney. 
 The corrected observation by this burner gave on the 7th of June, 16.61 on 
 a consumption of 4.14 cubic feet, corrected up to five feet, by the ordinary 
 rule. 
 
 By the same parliamentary burner which gave for the Dorchester gas an 
 illuminating power of 14.94 candles we obtained from the Boston gas nine- 
 
1869.] 
 
 SENATE — No. 387. 
 
 11 
 
 teen candles ; and by the ordinary fish-tail burner commonly in use in this 
 city, and marked for six feet, although reduced by our experiments to less 
 than five cubic feet, (say 4.69,) the Boston gas had when corrected by the 
 ordinary rule an illuminating power of twenty-one candles. Tested by the 
 Birmingham burner at the same time and place, the Boston gas was found to 
 possess an illuminating power of only 16.60 candles. It must be conspicuous 
 to any person from the simple inspection of these results that the Birmingham 
 burner is very ill-adapted to general use, and that it is restricted in point of 
 fact to a gas not exceeding an illuminating power of fourteen candles — that 
 when employed to test a gas such as that which is furnished by the Boston 
 city gas-light company it is found lamentably deficient, and would result 
 practically, were it adopted as the legal standard, in compelling this company 
 to reduce the standard of their gas to 79 per cent, of its present power, being 
 a clear loss of 21 per cent, to the consumer. This loss, be it remembered, 
 would not be felt so much in the diminished illumination obtained as in the 
 increased amount of the bills which must be paid for a larger consumption of 
 an inferior article so as to obtain the same amount of illumination. In other 
 words, the consumers would have to pay for the same amount of light at least 
 26 per cent, more than they now do. 
 
 The results above quoted furnish a convincing proof of the accuracy ol 
 Dr. Letheby's statement that the Birmingham burner, so-called, is best 
 adapted for 14-candle gas, and equally convincing that this burner is very 
 poorly adapted to develop the power of richer gases than that for which it 
 was designed. 
 
 As the law requires five cubic feet to be consumed per hour in this burner, 
 it is impossible to adapt it to gases of different chemical combinations, many 
 of which, owing to the peculiarity of their constitution, demand a larger 
 volume of air than others for the most complete development of the light 
 which they are capable of producing. No one will dispute the proposition 
 that every consumer of gas is entitled to receive the highest benefit that the 
 article for which he pays is capable of affording, and fortunately at this point 
 the interest of the manufacturer and the consumer meet. 
 
 The results obtained from burning the Boston gas in the ordinary fish-tail ■ 
 burner, consuming in our examination only 4 T 7 7 cubic feet per hour gave an 
 illuminating power of 20^- candles, which was nearly 7^ candles more than 
 was obtained from burning the maximum quantity of the same gas which the 
 Birmingham burner is capable of consuming. Here plainly is a loss to con- 
 sumers by this comparison of * more than 35 per cent. 
 
 The skill which is necessary to qualify a person to be a competent inspector 
 of gas is not easily obtained, and the number of persons thus qualified in this 
 country is, according to my observation, by no means large. 
 
 In the case of a dispute between a gas company and an inspector there 
 ought to be some tribunal to which an appeal can be made, as it is certainly 
 possible that an incompetent person may be appointed to this office. 
 
 In answer to the tenth question I would very respectfully suggest that in 
 my humble judgment, the proposed law is a very inadequate provision for the 
 purposes which it contemplates, and an imperfect exhibition of the present 
 state of knowledge on the important subject of the manufacture and distribu- 
 
12 
 
 REGULATION OF GAS COMPANIES. 
 
 [J une, 
 
 tion of gas, and that its passage would not be creditable to the intelligence 
 of the enlightened Commonwealth, whose interest it is intended to protect. 
 
 B. SILLIMAN, 
 
 Prof, of General and Applied Chemistry Yale College. 
 
 CO.] 
 
 REPLY OF PROFESSOR STORER. 
 
 132 Tremont Street, Boston, June 2, 1868. 
 Messrs. S. D. Crane and J. G. Pollard, Massachusetts Senate Committee. 
 
 Dear Sirs : — Your letter of May 31, propounding questions relating to 
 the testing cf illuminating gas, came to hand yesterday, together with copies 
 of the State law " For the Inspection of Meters, etc.," and the proposed sub- 
 stitute for that law. 
 
 I gather from your letter that you desire categorical answers to the ques- 
 tions. I would reply therefore : — 
 
 1st. That I am tolerably familiar with gas testing, and that I have paid a 
 certain amount of attention to the laws of England, France and America, 
 which relate to that subject. 
 
 2d, 3d and 4th. I have seen a specimen of the so-called Birmingham burn- 
 er, but have never tested any gas with it (so far as I now remember.) Speak- 
 ing in general terms, I may say that I do not esteem it a proper burner for 
 testing 16-candle gas. From the peculiar construction of the burner it would 
 be, a priori, unfit for testing high grade gas, such as is made in Scotland, and 
 in several American cities. 
 
 5th. I think they would. In other words, I do not believe that gases of 
 18 or 20-candle power can be fairly tested with the Birmingham burner. 
 
 6th. No. For each and every kind of gas there is, of course, some one 
 form of burner better fitted than any other form for testing that par- 
 ticular gas. In order that any kind of gas may be burned advantageously 
 it is necessary to adjust the flow of gas and of air so that there shall be just 
 enough, and no more than enough, of the latter to completely consume the 
 former, The amount of air needed depends not only on the quantity of the 
 gas which flows out to be burned, but to a still greater extent it depends upon 
 the quality of the gas. But different kinds of 16-candle gas differ widely as 
 to their quality — as to their chemical composition I mean. Hence, whenever 
 a new kind of gas is manufactured new experiments have to be made in order 
 to find the burner best suited for that gas. 
 
 A burner having a certain range of adaptability for burning different kinds 
 of gas, might probably be made from a broad Argand burner, provided with 
 large air spaces and many holes for the exit of the gas (such as would be 
 proper for burning rich gases) by fitting to its air-ducts a sliding arrangement 
 by which the supply of air might be diminished or increased at will. Such a 
 
1869.] 
 
 SENATE— No. 387. 
 
 13 
 
 burner, however, could only give a certain approximation to the best results. 
 It would, in most instances, be only a rough substitute for the best burner. 
 
 7th. Outside the large cities, I do not think it would be easy to find many 
 persons properly fitted to be inspectors of gas. 
 
 8th. I do not believe that a uniform inspection of gas could be secured 
 throughout the State by the passage of the proposed law. 
 
 9th. The right of appeal from the decision of a gas inspector should surely 
 be allowed the gas companies. Gas inspectors, no matter how expert, would 
 still be human beings, with human liability to error. 
 
 10th. The proposed law seems to me to be inferior to the existing law. I 
 should state, however, that I fail to see the meaning or significance of some 
 portions of the proposed law. Such, for example, as the section relating to 
 burners (§ 5). 
 
 With much respect, I remain, 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 FRANK H. STOKER. 
 
 [D.] 
 
 REPLY OF M. L. CALLENDER. 
 
 New York, June 5, 1809. 
 
 Hon. Samuel D. Crane and Hon. J. G. Pollard, Mass. Senate Committee. 
 
 % 
 
 Dear Sirs : — Owing to my absence from the city your communication of 
 May 31st has remained unanswered. Presuming that you require an early 
 answer, I shall therefore do so now, and necessarily very briefly, and without 
 taking the time to fortify myself with references to authorities I would do 
 were more time at my command. 
 
 You will find the answers to your questions seriatim. 
 
 First question. — Answer. I am. 
 
 Second question. — Answer. I have. 
 
 Third question. — Answer. I have. 
 
 Fourth question. — Answer. It is not a fair test for 10 candle gas. The 
 Birmingham burner was gotten up for the special purpose of testing gas at 
 Birmingham, England, because it gave the best results with the gas of that 
 locality. This gas was less than 10 candles, generally about 12 to 14 candle 
 power. 
 
 Fifth question. — Answer. If this burner were adopted as a test burner for 
 all gases, companies making 10 to 20 candle gas, in order to have a fair test, 
 would require to reduce the grade of their gas, and consequently increase the 
 amount of gas consumed by each customer. It would be very unjust, and a 
 great hardship to compel gas companies making a high grade of gas — of, say, 
 10 or 23 candle power — to test it with the Birmingham burner. In fact, the 
 true candle power of the gas could not be obtained with said burner. 
 
 2* 
 
14 
 
 REGULATION OF GAS COMPANIES. [June, 
 
 Sixth question. — Answer. Gases of different chemical combinations, but 
 having an illuminating power of 16 candles, cannot be properly tested by 
 any one burner. The burner that will give a correct result with the different 
 conditions above mentioned has not yet been invented. 
 
 Seventh question. — Answer. There are but few men in the United States 
 fully qualified to test the quality and purity of illuminating gases. Hence it 
 would be impossible to find inspectors having the requisite chemical and 
 scientific knowledge in many of the towns now lighted with gas. 
 
 Eight question. — Answer. The passage of the proposed law now before 
 the State Senate of Massachusetts would not secure a uniform inspection of 
 gas throughout the State', for the reasons stated in the last answer. 
 
 Ninth question. — Answer. There should be an umpire or some tribunal of 
 appeal from the decision of an inspector. If the inspector's decision is final, 
 grave abuse of so great a power would be likely to occur. 
 
 Tenth question. — Answer. We have examined the present law and the pro- 
 posed substitute in a critical and impartial manner, and are unable to see 
 where the interests of all parties concerned would be better protected by the 
 substitute. On the contrary, should it become a law, we can see where much 
 injury may occur to innocent parties — even those it is intended to benefit. It 
 will, without reasonable notice, place a great and unreasonable expense and 
 burden upon the gas companies, without any real gain to the consumers of 
 gas, but rather a loss, inasmuch as they now obtain a given amount of light 
 with more economy, from the quality of gas generally furnished them, than 
 they could from a higher grade of gas. The question of economy for heating 
 purposes is on the side of low candle gas. 
 
 Some of the advantages of low candle gas compared to high grade gas are, 
 the freedom from glare, so hurtful to sight, and the health of nervous people ; 
 the better diffusion of light, without the necessity of interposing globes, shades 
 and other media, which act only by annulling or reducing the candle power, 
 as much in some cases as 50 per cent, seldom less than 10 or 20 per cent. ; 
 the freedom from smoke and soot, and injury to furniture, etc. ; the perma- 
 nence or stability of the candle power in cold weather, etc. 
 
 The change in candle power proposed would burden the people with the 
 expense of an entire change of burners, or it would cause great inconvenience, 
 and much damage would occur to walls, hangings and furniture from the soot 
 or free carbon thrown down. 
 
 Most respectfully, &c, 
 
 M. L. CALLENDER. 
 
1869.] 
 
 SENATE— No. 387. 
 
 15 
 
 EE.] 
 
 From the Report (printed in the London " Journal of Gas Light- 
 ing" May 16, 1865,) of a Hearing before a Committes of the 
 House of Lords, on the Hanley Gas Bill. 
 
 Testimony of Thomas Hawksley, Esq., C. E. 
 " I am a civil engineer in very large practice, especially with respect to 
 gas and water works. My experience extends all over this country, and to 
 places beyond. I am in the habit of laying out works, superintending the 
 operations of companies when established, and of advising new companies as 
 to the probabilities of success. * * * * I have great experience in pho- 
 tometrical operations. With respect to the Birmingham burner, when it is 
 applied to gas of high quality it is a failure. That is a .14 candle gas burner 
 and it developes the light of a gas that contains as much carbon as will give a 
 light equal to fourteen candles. But, if a company should be supplying a gas 
 of 16 candles, that burner will not exhibit the whole amount of the light that 
 is contained in the gas. What I wish particularly to express is this, that the 
 burner does not create the light in any degree. It may repress the light by 
 not admitting a sufficient quantity of atmospheric oxygen to the flame, or by 
 admitting too much to the flame — that is to say, by not being properly pro- 
 portioned to the quality of the gas — but it cannot increase it. It is just like 
 any excise question. Assume the case of wine : you may by a bad process not 
 discover the true quantity of alcohol that there is in a particular quality of 
 wine, but you may by a better process discover that true quantity. As a 
 matter of course the excise would be entitled to the best mode of ascertaining 
 it. So in respect to gas, the carbon is the alcohol of gas, so to speak, and all 
 we have to do is to ascertain by the most perfect means we can, what quantity 
 of carbon the company sends out in its gas, because carbon is the vehicle of 
 light; it is not the light itself, but by ignition in a proper manner it becomes 
 the vehicle of light. We have here a remarkable instance of a burner con- 
 forming to the ordinary description of a parliamentary burner [producing a 
 burner]. This is a 15-hole Argand burner, the ordinary kind of burner 
 described in most Acts of Parliament, but it is so badly proportioned that, 
 with 12-candle gas, it gives the light of three candles. Here is another 
 burner, also conforming to the Act of Parliament, but better proportioned, 
 which will develop the light of 14-candle gas and show it to be 14 candles. 
 In testing the quality of gas by a photometer, it requires that the operation 
 should be made by a person of experience, and by trying a number of burners 
 till you discover the one that is adapted to the particular quality of gas. It is 
 just as I have described before ; it is the same as discovering the true percent- 
 age of alcohol in the bottle of wine. You do not put a percentage of alcohol 
 in a bottle of wine ; you only find what is there. Ascertaining the quality of 
 gas is a very delicate operation by that means, but it is one that is easily ac- 
 quired. I do not think the experiments of a man who had no experience 
 eould be depended upon. You might deceive him in a minute. If you took. 
 
16 REGULATION OF GAS COMPANIES. [June, 
 
 him out of the room and brought him back again without effecting any change 
 except by simply altering the position of the disc, he would not, if he tried the 
 gas again, come within two or three candles of the same result. Still it is not 
 a very difficult thing to acquire; but the eye must be educated, and a man 
 requires proper experience and instruction. There are a great number of 
 nice adjustments required; first of all, the meter must be adjusted to deliver 
 precisely five cubic feet in an hour, neither more nor less. The pressure of 
 the gas must be properly regulated so as not to vary during the time of oper- 
 ation. The burner must be adapted to the particular quality of gas to be 
 tested. The disc must be of good quality, because and [if?] it is not of a 
 proper and good quality, you cannot make a nice observation, and then the 
 eye must be trained to perform the task. The candle has to be weighed, and 
 not only that, it must burn in a particular manner ; because if the candle 
 tails off in smoke, as a matter of course there is too large a consumption of 
 the materiel of the candle, without a proper development of the light of the 
 candle. So at the other end of the photometer, if the gas tails off in smoke 
 the same result follows with regard to it. * * * * A company cannot 
 use a burner which is favorable to itself ; that is utterly impossible. A burner 
 may be used which is unfair to the company, because it will not develop the 
 quantity of light that is in the gas. It is utterly impossible to make it too 
 good. Usually, I should say bat's-wing burners are used, and for this reason, 
 there is no glass attached to them, and therefore there is no breakage. It was 
 not the object of Parliament in defining a burner to have one fixed standard ; 
 all that they wanted to provide was, that the gas should be burned with an 
 Argand burner with 15 holes and a seven inch chimney ; it left everything 
 else to tbe discretion of the parties." 
 
 Testimony of Thomas G. Barlow, Esq. 
 " I am a civil engineer, and am mainly consulted in reference to gas-works. 
 I have been engaged in that capacity upwards of thirty years, and have my- 
 self erected above fifty gas-works in various parts of the kingdom. * * * 
 These photometric operations are very delicate, and cannot be conducted by 
 inexperienced persons. Supposing the corporation have the power of testing 
 the gas, and imposing penalties if it is not of a certain standard, the people 
 of Hanley will have the same protection as exists in London." 
 
 Testimony of Dr. Letheby. 
 " I am Professor of Chemistry at the London Hospital, medical officer of 
 health to the city of London, and gas-analyst to the Corporation of London. 
 I have held that office for thirteen years. I have heard the evidence of Mr. 
 Hawksley, particularly on the photometer, Argand burner and the illuminat- 
 ing power of gas. I agree, to a large extent, with the opinions expressed by 
 him — without any material difference. I quite agree with what he says in 
 this respect, that the burner does not in any way produce the light of the 
 gas, and that companies are entitled to the best means of educing the light of 
 the gas. * * * To take the example of the Birmingham burner at the present 
 time : it is suited for 14-candle gas — indeed, it was at my recommendation 
 that that particular measurement was adopted ; but if the company give 15- 
 
1869.] 
 
 SENATE— No. 387. 
 
 17 
 
 candle gas, the burner does not show the light, and the company do not get 
 the credit for what it gives. * * * The test by the photometer is a 
 very delicate test. It is exactly as Mr. Hawksley says. It is not difficult to 
 learn, but when learned true results are easily arrived at ; nevertheless it 
 does require teaching. Supposing a candle were used in the experi- 
 ments that was not proper for the purpose, an incorrect result would 
 follow : the same with regard to the burner. ***** While 
 the company give 14-candle gas, the Birmingham burner shows the true 
 amount of light ; but if they give more than 14 candles, the burner does 
 not show it, and the company does not get the credit. On the other hand, if 
 the company do not give 14 candles, the tendency of the burner would be to 
 show still less, and therefore would exaggerate the difference. The burner I 
 used was a burned of t^ths inch internal diameter, instead of y^ths of an 
 inch ; it did not correspond with the Birmingham burner. As a general 
 question, if you test gas a mile and a half off, you lose something like 1 candle. 
 But I have known instances where gas properly purified has not lost anything 
 in illuminating power by travelling six miles. In this instance there was no 
 difference between the works and the office experiments ; that was in conse- 
 quence of the gas being well purified. There is a great difference of opinion 
 as to whether it is possible, within a given time, to alter the quality of gas by 
 consuming cannel coal. The difference of opinion amongst those best quali- 
 fied to judge is so great that I cannot express any judgment upon it. The 
 difference of opinion is not only as to the time required, but the effect of the 
 change. I have never charged in my reports any company with falsifying ex- 
 periments by that means — never." 
 
 [p.] 
 
 Extract from a paper by Dr. Letheby on the Chemistry of Gas- 
 lighting, read before the British Association of Gas Managers, 
 May 31, 1865. 
 
 " You will see, therefore, that there is no one burner which is suited to 
 every quality of gas, unless, indeed, the supply of it to the burner is regu- 
 lated. * * * It is evident, that if a fixed quantity of gas, say five feet 
 an hour, is to be passed through the burner, the burner must be selected to 
 give the maximum amount of light, and therefore no fixed measurement of 
 burner can be specified." 
 
 [G.] 
 
 Extract from the Report to the Court of Common Council, of the 
 Special Gas Committee on the passage of the City of London 
 Gas Bill, 1868. 
 
 " The Board of Trade are to appoint referees, who are from time to time 
 to prescribe the mode to be adopted for testing and recording the illuminat- 
 3 
 
18 REGULATION OP GAS COMPANIES. [June, 
 
 ing power of. the gas. The only limitations upon the discretion of the 
 referees in this respect are that the burner is to be such as shall be most suit- 
 able for obtaining from the gas the greatest amount of light, and be practi- 
 cable for use by the consumer." 
 
 [H.] 
 
 From the Appendix to Report from the Select Committee on Me- 
 tropolis Gas Bill [1867]. Appendix, No. 4. 
 
 Alphabetical table, showing the minimum illuminating power prescribed by 
 Parliament from 1856 to 1866 (both years inclusive). 
 
 Summary of 189 Acts. 
 
 1 Act prescribing 9 candles. 
 
 23 Acts " . 10 " 
 
 4 « " 11 " ' 
 
 40 « !^f [\ '."12' ' 
 
 7 « " 13 " 
 
 68 " " 14 " 
 
 4 " " ...... 15 " 
 
 6 " " 16 " 
 
 4 " " 18 " 
 
 1 Act (Liverpool) prescribing . . . . 20 " 
 
 2 Acts (Metropolis and Dewsbury) . 12 and 20 " 
 29 " illuminating power not named. 
 
 Copy of Correspondence with State Inspector of' Gas. 
 commonwealth of massachusetts. 
 
 Senate Chamber, Boston, ) 
 June 4, 1869. j 
 
 F. E. Stimpson, Esq., State Inspector of Gas. 
 
 Sir : — We learn Mr. N. C. Nash, and Mr. Hill, called at your office yes- 
 terday with a burner which they called the standard Birmingham burner. 
 Please inform us if this is the same kind of burner as described in the bill 
 now before the Senate, and also the result of the test you made of said burn- 
 er, the amount of gas you passed through it per hour, and quality of the gas 
 in candles as the result. An early reply will much oblige 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 S. D. CRANE, 
 J. G. POLLARD, 
 
 Special Committee of the Senate. 
 
1869.] 
 
 SENATE — No. 387. 
 
 19 
 
 Office of Gas Inspection, 313 Washinton St., 
 Boston, June 5, 1869. 
 
 Hon. S. D. Crane and J. G. Pollard, Special Committee of the Senate. 
 
 Gents. : — Messrs. Nash and Hill were here on the 3d inst. and brought a 
 burner purporting to be the Birmingham burner. I only took a few measure- 
 ments of it, viz., the external diameter at the top, the internal diameter of 
 the top, and the diameter of the holes. These were close approximations to 
 the dimensions described in the bill ; though, as I told them, the diameter of 
 the holes seems to be a trifle less, by about inch. 
 
 They had not been able to procure a chimney of two inches in diameter. 
 
 The only experiments I tried with it were, first, to see how much of Boston 
 gas could be burned in it without smoking, (which I found to be about 4£ feet 
 per hour,) and second, how much it would smoke with 5 cubic feet per hour, when 
 it showed a long, smoky flame of about 8 inches above the top of a chimney. 
 I made no test of the candle-power of the gas at that time, either with that 
 burner or any other. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 FRED. E STIMPSON, 
 
 State Inspector of Gas and Meters.