Again, it has frequently been urged that persons working by electric light have thus induced inflammation of the eyes. No doubt this is so with light containing the highly refrangible rays in excess; but it is difficult to see how such an effect can occur with light composed as is the light with which the eyes are constructed to operate in perfect harmony. As you are aware, there are other methods of obtaining light by electric energy, and in order to make a fair comparison of one which has lately attracted a great deal of attention and capital, I will relate to you the result of observations made during a recent visit to the office of an eminent electrician. The light was that known as incandescent--a filament of carbon raised to a light-emitting heat in vacuo. The exclusion of the air is necessary to prevent the otherwise rapid destruction of the carbon by combination with oxygen. At the time of my visit there were 62 lamps in circuit. According 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.