The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-04-16
Communicated.
THE GAS CONTROVERSY.

A communication appeared in last Sun
days Picayune, under the above caption,
protesting to give fair and impartial state
ment of the controversy between the New
Orleans Gas Light Company and the Cres-
cent City Gas Light Company-that abOr-
ton conceived in sin and brought forth in
the iniquity of the bogus Legislature Of
1870.
We subjOin an extract
"The former company has existed for
nearly forty years, and has always been a
very prosperous corporation. The latter is
new company, created by act of the Legis-
lature of 1870, and co tirmed by subsequent
acts. The stock Of this company, we are
informed, has been purchased by large CAPT
talists, who have had great experience and
success in the conduct Of gas companies in
large cities. Their charter, however, de-
rives additional value from the opinion
maintained by eminent COUNSEL as to the
nnconstutionality and invalidity of an act
passed by the Legislature in 1850, to extend
the charter of the old company for twenty
years from the LIST of April, 1875, when the
original charter terminates. If that act is
valid and constitutional, there will be two
conflicting claims to the franchise OF vending
gas and Illuminating the city"
1t will be observed that the validity aud
constitutionality of this infamous creation
of an infamous body, is spoken of without
one word of indignant comment. The writer
evidently believes that the act creating this
unwarrantable attack upon the rights of
property should he held sacred if the forms
of law were observed in its creation. This
is certainly a low and pettitogging view of
the case.
We propose to discuss the question on
higher grounds. and will premise by asking,
hat INI1 tn has
what interests of the people were to be pro-
noted by the creation OF a new monopoly at
the expiration of the old, assuming that
the charter of the old company expires in
1875?
We look upon any act legalizing a mono
poly as an evi, and violative of correct
principle, not to be created except from what
is deemed a necessity as a choice of evils
Before gas was introduced into this city,
the enterprise of supplying the city with it
was an nntried experiment, requiring a
large expenditure Of capital, attended with
| risk, and as an investment, more or less
doubtful of being ultimately remunerative.
Hence capitalists would not embark
their means in an enterprise so doubtful,
unless secured for limited period against
| competition. In view of these circum-
stances, a Legislature could, without impro-
priety, grant exclusive privileges to the
original company, for although sacrificing a
principle, the advantages to the people were
more than likely to cOunterbalance the evil
| arising from it. But at the expiration of
| the charter what reasons can be given for the
perpetuation of this exclusive privilege to
any company. Did the people demand the
| creation of this new monopoly, owned prin-
cipally by capitalists living abroad, and
| armed with powers to exact mOre-fOr this
almost necessity of life-than the old COM
pany was willing to sell at ?
To make bad worse, these mOnOpOlizing
privileges could rot be granted to new
company, without violating the sacred
rights of private property. in addition to
sacrificing tue general rights of the citizens,
thus defeating the chief end for which all
governments are instituted.
The erection of a new company, with ex-
elusive privileges, just as effectually de-
strOys the value Of all the property of the
old company as if it was thrown into the
river.
This act of legislative robbery or vandal-
ism is neither contingency contemplated,
nor risk assumed by the old company in
its compact with the State at the formation
of its charter, and is, therefore, upon that
ground, in common equity, null and void.
In conclusion. we would in all confidence
ask, is there any man-with sense above
idiocy-who believes that this new company
was anything but the corrupt offspring of a
corrupt Legislature and a corrupt Execn-
tive %s.s