The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2668) granting a pension to William J. Uhler, report :

The bill directs that the name of William J. Uhler, minor child of Nelson M. Uhler, late a private in Company B, Twenty-first Regiment Ohio Volunteers, be placed on the pension-roll, and that a pension be paid him from the passage of the act. As the minor was born on the 3d day of October, 1858, he will become sixteen years of age on the 2d day of October, 1874, and, by the terms of the bill, he could receive a pension for only a fraction of one year.

But, on the facts contained in the memorial of his guardian and in the affidavits filed, ought any pension to be granted? These facts are as follows:

While Company B was at Kingston, Ga., about the 10th of Norember, 1864, they were short of provisions, and there was a strong temptation to forage. A general order had been issued, however, prohibiting captains of companies from granting leave to soldiers to go foraging. Under these circumstances the said Nelson M. Uhler, with three other members of the company, applied to the captain, Samuel F. Cheeny, for leave to go out of the line on a foraging expedition, and stated that they knew of some fat hogs in a pen about three miles out, and would like to bring one in. The captain informed them he could not grant the leave and referred to the general order as prohibiting him, but closed his response by requesting the four soldiers to bring him a piece of fresh pork, in case they captured any. They gave the promise and left the camp openly and in full view of the captain, who knew their destination and purpose. Notwithstanding his expressed refusal, they understood him as consenting to the expedition. They went to the pen, captured and killed a hog, and were about returning, when they were surrounded by the enemy and taken prisoners, and kept as such at Cababa, in Alabama, until about the 24th of March, 1865, when they were released and sent to Vicksburgh. Here, on the 25th of April, 1865, they embarked on board the steamer Sultana, ascending the river on their way home, when two days later her boilers exploded and Uhler was among the missing. He has never been seen or heard of since. All four of the soldiers were borne upon the rolls as deserters, but upon proof of the facts the Secretary of War corrected the record as to the survivors, so that they became entitled to their pay and bounties.

The widow of Uhler applied for a pension, but died while the claim was pending. The guardian of the minor renewed the application for his ward; but the Pension-Office denied the pension, on the ground that the father was not in the line of duty at the time he was captured and made prisoner. Shall this decision be set aside?

The committee think it ought not to be. These four soldiers left their company, not only without orders, but against a general order which prohibited it. The order was made by competent authority, and made to be respected. In consequence of its violation, the United States lost. the benefit of the services of the soldiers. The very officer who winked at the violation, reported them on the company-rolls as deserters. Upon his application and affidavit the charge of desertion was afterward removed, and we infer that the three survivors received the pay and boun ties in the same manner as if they had obeyed orders and continued to do duty with their comrades. We submit that this was paying them a premium for disobedience. The United States not only lost their services, but paid them for services never rendered. We cannot follow any such precedent. Had Uhler been killed by the enemy instead of being captured, could his widow or minor child have claimed a pension on the ground that he died in the service, and in the line of duty? Was it in the line of duty to disobey orders Shall we establish any such precedent by allowing a pension in this case? All discipline in the Army would be at an end, if, for disobedience like this, the soldier could not only escape punishment, but demand a premium for the misfortunes growing out of violation of orders.

The committee recommend that the bill be indefinitely postponed.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

APRIL 24, 1874.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont, submitted the following
REPORT:

[To accompany bill S. 733.]

The Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, to whom was referred the following resolution: "Resolved, That the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds be instructed to inquire as to the amount of gas consumed and paid for by the Government, at Washington, whether its illuminating power is constantly tested, and whether its cost cannot properly be diminished," have considered the same, and submit the following report:

Illuminating gas was first practically introduced into the city of London, at the commencement of the present century, (A. D. 1804,) and is now almost universally used in every city of the world. The brilliancy of the light, and the facility with which it may be used, are very high recommendations, and those who can afford it are unlikely to accept of anything else. The excess of light habitually maintained, the liability to waste by leakage, by bad burners, and by unregulated pressure, seriously affects the economy of its general use, and it is consequently never less than the dearest light. The tallow-candle, sperm oil, and refined petroleum offer less light, but they offer it at immensely less cost. The economical questions arising from the present large consumption of illuminating gas concern not only the people of this District, but of the National Government, which here is one of the largest consumers, as its annual account of from $80,000 to over $100,000, conclusively shows. The committee have, therefore, endeavored to ascertain whether or not gas cannot be more cheaply supplied. The prices charged by the Washington Gas-Light Company have been regulated by acts of Congress, and, if they are too high, ought at once to be reduced. The price charged, according to law, June 25, 1860, was $3.50 per 1,000 feet, with a discount for prompt payment of ten per cent. By the act of July 11, 1862, the price was reduced to $3.00 to private consumers and $2.80 for the United States, with a discount, if paid within five days, of ten per cent. respectively, which made the net price $2.70 and $2.52. By act of January, 1865, the price was raised to $4, with a discount of ten per cent. to the United States, and of five per cent. to all others for prompt payment. On April 10, 1869, by act of Congress, the disCount was increased to 183 per cent. Prior to this, the company had, from its own sense of justice, slightly increased the discount in 1866, 67, and '68, to 15 per cent., and on August 1, 1872, they made a further Voluntary reduction to $3.75 per 1,000 feet, with 20 per cent. discount, and

this is the charge of the company for gas at the present time. During this time an internal-revenue tax was levied, but the company availed itself of the privilege, where prices were fixed by law or contract, and charged it over directly to all consumers, including the Government. The result was that the company paid no tax upon its manufacture of gas.

From the large number of propositions made to the committee for the introduction of illuminating gas at much lower rates by new processes, the committee have been driven, in justice to the Government and the people of this District, to the alternative of either authorizing new parties to furnish gas or to reduce the price of that now furnished.

NEW PROPOSALS OF NEW COMPANIES.

In considering the first question, although some of the processes brought to our notice seem plausible, and it is not unlikely may yet prove successful, the fact that no where has any one of them been long and thoroughly tested to any large extent in populous cities, leaves the subject too much in the nature of an experiment for the Government to assume the risk of any change at this time, however large the tempta tion. Among the propositions we have received may be mentioned that of John H. Rice, secretary of the National Gas and Iron Company of Chicago, Ill., offering gas to the Government at $1 per 1,000 feet, and at $1.10 to the inhabitants of the city; provided that they are at no expense for holders and mains; or to furnish their own holders and all the mains and pipe, except service-pipe, and supply pure gas, of 16 candles illuminating power, at $1.50 per 1,000 feet to the Government buildings, and at $2 to the inhabitants of the city; provided, however, that the Government and the city shall furnish grounds for their works and holders. If the first proposition should be accepted, they ask a contract for five years, and, if the second should be accepted, a contract for ten years.

This proposal is made in a business-like form, apparently in good faith, and the company also proposes to furnish a proper guarantee if either of the propositions should be accepted. It is sufficient to say that the committee have not been furnished with any evidence showing the practical ability of this company to furnish gas of the quality described, nor are they in possession of any knowledge as to the capital of the company, which is nominally stated at $5,000,000, but no part of it appears to have been paid in. It would seem most expedient, therefore, to await further developments before accepting proposals for cheaper gas manufactured by new processes from new materials, notwithstanding the fact that the offers appear to be sustained by gentlemen of character and reputed wealth.

REDUCTION OF PRICE.

The new processes having been disposed of, or at least postponed for the present, the question remains as to a reduction of the price of the gas now furnished by the Washington Gas-Light Company, and should be determined in such manner as to be entirely just to the company, the Government, and the people of the city. The company is certainly entitled to make fair profits on its actual investment and business enterprise, and the Government and the people are equally entitled to have gas of a standard quality at a reasonable cost.

The power of Congress to authorize new gas companies, and to alter,

amend, or repeal the act incorporating the Washington Gas-Light Company, will be seen by the following section of the act of July 8, 1848: SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent any person or persons. nor any incorporated company hereafter to be created by Congress for that purpose, from engaging in and pursuing the business specified in the seventh section of this act; and that it shall be lawful for Congress, at any time hereafter, to alter, amend, or repeal this act.

Beyond this, as will be seen, the power has constantly been exercised by repeated changes in the price of the gas supplied, and sometimes changed, at the urgent request of the company.

That some reduction should take place is already proven,, if there were not other proof, by the proposal of the Washington Gas-Light Company itself, made to the committee, to reduce their present charges from the net price of $3 to $2.70, to the United States, and to $3, with 10 per cent. discount, if promptly paid, to all others. The further question remains as to whether this reduction is all that ought to be required.

PRICES CHARGED ELSEWHERE.

The company have furnished the committee with a statement of the prices charged for gas by 455 companies in many of the cities of the United States, which apparently shows an average of $4.32 per 1,000 cubic feet. But it must be borne in mind that many of these parties supply a very limited amount of gas, and many are very remote from the regions of gas-coal. The charge in Salem, N. C., is $10, and in Jacksonville, Fla., $8, per 1,000 feet of gas. Of course such companies as these furnish no proper data for an average. Generally the list of prices only shows what must seem like rather prevailing exorbitant rates. When gas companies once obtain a foothold in any city they virtually hold a monopoly, and stocks in such companies, when the consumption of gas is considerable, yield large dividends. Instead of seeking an average by a comparison of all the gas companies of the country, great and small, near and remote, it would be much fairer to select companies in cities more like Washington, and not very remote from gas-coal regions. The cost of gas in Allegheny, Pa., is $1.90, and in Pittburgh $1.60. Even in Detroit, Mich., it is only $1.90. The price at Boston, (far away from all coal,) of a very prosperous company, is only $2.50. At New York, where coal is said to be dearer by 75 cents per ton than in Washington, and labor probably higher, the terms of the gas companies are only $2.75 per 1,000 feet, and there seems to be considerable opposition in that city to submitting even to these terms.

These statements of the prices paid elsewhere only show that the company at Washington is a little more modest than others in the same business, but do not show that gas cannot be afforded here for much less than the average charged in all other parts of the United States, nor do they show that it is not quite possible for gas to be made and sold here as cheaply as it is done in other places where the cost of labor and coal is equal or more.

LONDON GAS COMPANIES.

It may be well to compare the London gas companies, regulated by Parliament, with our own. In the first place, the rights and duties are very elaborately set forth in general statute-laws, where the illuminating power of gas, rigidly subjected to inspection, is fixed, self-acting regulators of pressure universally provided for, and, while the price of gas is not determined, the dividends are limited to 10 per cent. per annum ;