of June, July and August, of last year. The price of the anthracite coal used was $5 per ton, and the price of crude petroThe coal for the month of cents, and labor 19 cents—

leum was eight cents per gallon. June cost 15 cents, petroleum 22 charging a whole day's labor for a man only partially employed-making a total of 56 cents per thousand feet, not including cost of purification. For July (I give the totals and not the details) it was 54 cents. For August it was 51 cents. The amount of coal used, including that used for the boiler, was for the first month, 62 lbs. per thousand feet; for the second month 58 lbs; and for the third month, 54 lbs. The number of gallons of petroleum used for the first month was 2-73; for the second, 2-69; for the third, 2-61 per thousand and the illuminating power of the gas, as tested by a Lowe jet photometer, averaged 16 candles.

The results of the other test referred to, when the coal and oil used were weighed and measured before us, and during the whole time it was being made, we were present, were as follows: Cost of coal, 15 cents, petroleum, 21 cents, and labor (charging for the time the man was actually employed), eight cents. Total cost per thousand feet (not including purification), 44

cents.

In March, last, I wrote to Mr. Kerr, asking if he was still satisfied with the process, and whether he had discovered any defects in its working, which he was not aware of at the time of our visit.

And, as he is not here, which I regret, perhaps it may be well for me to read the letter, or portions of the letter which is dated March 27th, which I received from him in reply, and this was after the works had been in operation for about 15 months. He says: "In reply to your questions, I say, first, I am still satisfied with the process, and have not found any special defects in its working. Second, I have not experienced any stoppage or clogging up of pipes, and very few of the burners have been effected. Indeed, I think we have less trouble in this respect than when we made gas from coal. The reports which you have received to the contrary, must either arise from prejudice or ignorance of the proper working of the system.

have the same burners and taps in use, in my photometric room, that I had when you were here, and have never cleaned them; and for the last six months I have been passing the gas, to supply an experimental burner, through a glass tube, and, as yet, I cannot perceive the slightest trace of deposit of any kind whatever.

"I suppose you have also received exaggerated reports relative to its liability to condensation, and, consequently, its decreased illuminating power when passed from a warm to a cold temperature. During the last winter I made some experiments. upon this point. I passed the gas from my photometer room, -the temperature of which, is generally between 65 and 70 degrees to the yard outside, which reduces its temperature to several degrees below zero, and then through a series of pipes, in all, about 50 feet, and finally brought it back to the photometer; and the difference of the illuminating power before it went out, and when it came back, was very small indeed, and on several occasions it remained in the pipes, and exposed to the weather for a week at a time."

I visited Kingston again, in August last, and asked him whether he was still of the same opinion that he was when he wrote that letter, and he told me that, if anything, he was better pleased with the gas than he was at first. This is the testimony of a highly respectable gentleman and a man of long practical experience in gas making. Our directors, however, were not willing to introduce the process solely upon the reports received from Kingston, and I was therefore deputed, with our superintendent, to go to Baltimore. Our visit there, I will say, was unexpected, but we were allowed to go through the works and examine them. I made a record of what I saw, and the statement I am about to make, was taken from the books of the company, and not from actual observation, because, as a number of the generators were working continuously, and were charged at different times, it was impossible to get an accurate statement of the amount of naphtha and coal used, without referring to the books. I shall refer, with permission of the Association, to a copy of a report which we made to our board of directors, upon our return, containing the record I made,

which covers a period of about six weeks. The record shows that it took 47.60 pounds (say 50), of anthracite coal, at $3.50 per net ton, and 4.58 (say 4%), gallons of crude naphtha, at 41⁄2 cents per gallon, to produce 1,000 cubic feet of gas. Seven men were employed on each shift, or 14 per diem, whose wages averaged $2 each. These men, we were informed, were quite sufficient to work eight sets of apparatus, capable easily of producing 600,000 feet per diem. This would make the gas cost as follows:

This is the gas, not including purification, and I have no reason to suppose it to be otherwise than correct. We, with the engineer of the works, tested the illuminating power of the gas with Bunsen's bar photometer, and the average illuminating power, after corrections, was 22.31 candles. The engineer assured us that they kept the gas constantly at about that standard; and this I have no reason to doubt; as I have said before, our visit was unexpected. On testing the gas we found it free from ammonia and carbonic acid, but the test paper showed a slight trace of sulphuretted hydrogen. On inquiring among the consumers, we found they were well satisfied with the gas, and in no case had the pipes or burners been stopped up from use.

We went from there to Harrisburgh, Penn., and we learned the reason why the gas had not been successful there. I do not want to say anything against the conduct of the works, but I will simply state that the means of ascertaining the quantity of material used were not very complete.

There were two generators and super-heaters, with washboxes and condensers, but no purifiers, and consequently the gas was impure, and showed, on testing, the presence of a very large quantity of sulphuretted hydrogen. There was no station.

meter, governor, or photometer, nor was the coal and oil used weighed or measured. The holder was only of 35,000 capacity, being much too small for the quantity of gas manufactured. We were informed by the superintendent that they used 4 1-10 gallons of naphtha and 65 lbs. of coal per 1,000 feet, and employed one foreman and three men. The gas being without purification, and being produced under these circumstances, I do not wonder that the people did not want to use it. I am sure I should have been very reluctant to do so, as I would coal gas without purification. Proper purification would. have remedied the whole difficulty; and I can only wonder that, with so effective a remedy within their reach, the company did not employ it.

As I have stated, we have made conditional arrangements with S. A. Stevens & Co., to introduce the gas in Toronto. They seem, at all events, to be very sincere in what they are doing. They have agreed to erect works themselves in Toronto, upon these conditions: That they shall produce 1,000 feet of gas from 4 gallons of petroleum and 60 pounds of ordinary anthracite coal, or 50 pounds of Indian Ridge coal, and that, if we cannot, on an average throughout the year, produce that amount of gas from that quantity of material, they will take their works down at their own expense, and not require anything from us whatever. They have so much confidence, evidently, in their own system, that they are willing to introduce the gas in Toronto upon those terms.

Now, let us see what it will cost with the present price of coal, and material, and labor in Toronto. So far as my information goes, it is just a question of cost. If soft coal is very cheap, say about $2.50 per ton, and if crude petroleum is from 8 to 10 cents per gallon, then, of course, it is more profitable to use bituminous coal, and make gas by the old system; but if oil and hard coal are relatively cheaper, then it is more profitable to make gas by the new process. At least, these are my views. I am willing, of course, to be corrected if I am wrong. Now, as to the question of cost at present prices :

Coal at, say, $5 per ton, would cost, per 1,000

Perhaps some of them cannot do so. And if material, we can make

Now, the gentlemen here will know whether they can make gas from coal as cheaply as that or not. can, but I will frankly confess that we we find, that with the present price of gas as cheaply as the amount I have stated, by the Lowe process, it will pay us to introduce it. Besides, we have this advantage we have our coal works, and if we do not succeed in making the gas upon the conditions named, we can go back to the old process again.

Another point is this: I am informed that coke can be used in the generators instead of hard coal. I have been told that this has been done successfully at Indianapolis. If so, the cost of the gas can be lessened very materially, and coke, which cannot be sold, used profitably. We want to get the best gas, and, at the same time, the cheapest gas we can; and we are quite willing in Toronto, to take the Lowe process on the terms at which it has been offered to us. It may be that at the end of the year our expectations will not be realized, but, at any rate, we shall gain experience, and cannot lose much. If I should be present at the next meeting of the Association, I will as frankly give you my experience of the process then, as I have now given you the results of my examination in this direction, which have lead me to form the conclusion I have arrived at. [Applause.]

MR. CHAMBERS-I hope Mr. Pearson's pleasurable expectations may be realized. I am sure no one would be better pleased than myself, to know how to manufacture this gas profitably, and do away with the complaints of consumers. We have purchased this plant at Trenton, at a great cost, and if it should result that gas can be made cheaper and better by the Lowe process, than by the old, I am sure we shall be very glad,