The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-04-05
THE CoNTENDING GAS COMPANIES.

a Hard Blow At MISUNDERSTANDING
Competition and Not Repelling It-Im-
portant Decision by Judge Donohue.
Several days since there was protracted arqu-
ment before Judge Donohue in Supreme Court.
Chambers, upon an application made by Oscar
ZollicOner, President Of the Metropolitan Gas
Company though not as President OF the CON-
pany, but as taxpayer, to prevent the city from
executing o contract with the New York Mutual
Gaslight Company to light the street lamps in
the district Of the Metropolitan Company, en-
bracing the region between Tnirty-fou and
Seventy ninth streets. The facts, as reported at
the time In the HERALD, showed that following
bids for proposals for lighting the street lamps,
the New York Mutual Gas Company having
sixty-two miles Of gas mains laid in the
streets and ready to connect with the
street lamps put In bid to light
the lamps at $65 year apiece. This
Was the lowest bid in the district named, the New
York, Manhattan and Harlem Companies having
put IN lower bids In their respective districta
Judge Donohue gave yesterday his decision in the
matter, ana its Importance as Affecting the various
streets viii be apparent upon reading 1t. He goes
in boldly for competition, and indicates plainly
way. all competition would virtually be destroyed.
The following is the Judges opinion embodying his
OPINION OF JUDGE DoNoHUE.
In TINS case the bill seeks to restrain the defend
ants from making contract for lighting certain
lamps with tue Mutual Gaslight Company. The
action is brought by taxpayer under the act OF
1872 70 prevent waste, tina suggestion being that If
the contract Is made 1t will result in loss the
corporation and o waste OF the trust FUNDS.
Whether or no It IL the old gas companies that.
the inference seems to be drawn, are max
ing the objection as to the Lew companies
making undue profits. has nothing to do
with the case. The simple question presented
In this case assuming the act OF 1872 to give the
plaintiff the right TO bring this suit is, DO the
papers presented show that If the defendants are
not restrained the property Of the city will be
wasted or injured? Alter careful examination
70 see that such Will be the result. substantially
the only thing the complainant complains OF.
il that the Mutual Company IN their offer inter-
pOlate condition not set out IN the proposals
accepted, to make waste or injury, the plantlr
has nothing to do with 1t (; he has no standing in
COurt, and think he entirely fails 10 show the
suit he alleges In his argument the learned coun-
sci put cases In which waste might in certain cir
cun1stances result and where corrupt influences
might lead to that result, II variation was allowed
In the proposal from the form invited; but 1t does
not follow that because such Things might In some
cases happen the Court should restrain here where
here with broader power and right tnan he does
DO not think ne could sustain his motion. The
whole object and scope Of the proposals
is notorious that none but certain COM
pantes are connected by pipes with the city lamps;
that whether by contract or mutual consent, those
companies district or dlvlie the CITY, and, whether
from courtesy or contract, refrain from bidding
In certain districts, Is lmmaterlal 1t Is the TACT
that II the privilege here asked by the Mutual Com
pany Is not granted them the proposals Tor bids
might as well be withdrawn and the form Of
competition waived The only manner in which
what the law seeks can be accomplished Is to have
all persons who have the means to supply what the
city wants allowed an equal opportunity to Did, and
unless the Mutual or any other gas company not
70 connect there could be no competition. The
m0siOn should be denied and Injunction dissolved.