to their statement each lamp was of 16-candle power—­I accept their statement as correct; this will give us an aggregate of 992 candles.  The generator was vitalized by an engine rated by the attendants in charge at 6-horse power.  I found that it was a 5x7 cylinder, working with very little expansion 430 revolutions per minute, with 90 pounds of live steam, in a boiler not 15 feet from the engine.  I have every reason to believe that the steam was delivered at the cylinder with an almost inappreciable loss on 90 pounds.  Under those conditions I think it is perfectly fair to assume (you have the data, so that you can calculate it afterwards) that 750,000 foot pounds were consumed in producing those 60 lights, aggregating 992 candles.  In the kind of engine they had, 750,000 foot pounds requires a consumption of about 100 pounds of coal per hour.  It was an ordinary high speed engine.  That 750,000 foot pounds, I assume, required 100 pounds of coal.  That is the only weak point in my data; I do not know that to be true; but I never saw an engine of that form yet capable of delivering 1-horse power with less consumption than four to five pounds of coal per horse power per hour.  I want to be as fair as I can in the matter.  I wish to compare this, as they have taken particular pains to compare it, with gas, at the present cost of gas.

The hundred pounds of coal will produce 400 feet of gas; 400 feet of gas will evolve the effect of 1,500 candles.  So you see the position we are in.  In consuming that coal directly by destructive distillation you can produce 1,500 candles light; by converting it into power, and then again into light by incandescence, you produce 992!  Expressing this in other words, we may say that in producing the light from coal by the incandescent system you lose one-third of the power as compared with gas, by actually converting the coal into gas, and delivering it in the ordinary manner.  Those are facts.  It has been suggested to me that I am too liberal in my estimate of coal consumed—­that those engines consume more than four or five pounds per horse power per hour; but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Rothschild—­If I understood you correctly, this electric light costs more than gas?

Mr. Daft—­Must do by this system.  You cannot do better, so far as our philosophy goes.  But this whole system of illumination, as now practiced is a financial fallacy.

Mr. Rothschild—­That is what Professor Sawyer says.

Mr. Daft—­The same amount of energy converted into light by our arc system will produce 30,000 candles.  We are perfectly willing to demonstrate that at any time.  I am free to admit that the minute subdivision obtained by the Edisonian, Swan, or Fox system—­they do not differ materially—­is a great desideratum; but this cannot bridge the financial gulf.

Mr. Lendrum—­Now please state what we have accomplished.