Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 3.djvu/616

 602 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

other competing company. On November 8, 1897, while the ordinance was under consideration, a syndicate of responsible capitalists and experienced gas manufacturers offered the city a bonus of $10,000,000 ($1,000,000 the first year and $300,000 each succeeding year) for the same lease as was provided for in the United Gas Improvement ordinance.

The question at once arises, Why did the members of common council, representing as they did nearly a million and a quarter of citizens of Philadelphia, vote to give away the gas works to a syndicate of capitalists for ten millions of dollars less than another bidder was ready and willing to offer at the same time ? Had they received unmistakable instructions from their constitu- ents to make such a one-sided bargain, or was there such a crisis in the management of the works as to make such a sacrifice amounting to $10,000,000 imperatively necessary?

Emphatically no. The people in town meeting assembled had declared in no uncertain terms that the gas works should be retained. At a score of ward meetings held in all sections of the city and in every instance largely attended the citizens had declared against the parting with the gas works on any terms. Municipal reform organizations, patriotic societies, and labor unions protested against the lease, and in one ward, where the question was submitted to an informal vote at the general election held on November 2, over 2,800 voted against leasing and but thirty-two in favor. In spite of the almost unanimous expression of public sentiment against the gas lease, the United Gas Improvement Company's ordinance was rushed through the subcommittee and the joint committees of finance and gas with such indecent and indecorous haste that the Municipal League in one of its addresses on the subject was justified in saying:

"Although the proposed United Gas Improvement Company's lease has been materially improved as a result of public criticism and discussion, it is still far from adequate to protect the city's interest, as its critics, including the city solicitor, have pointed out, and the United Gas Improvement Company's proposition is far less advantageous than that of other responsible Pennsylvania