The New Orleans daily Democrat., 1880-04-02

| limited to 81 600 600, secured by mortg age
upon the works and property OF said cor
poration.
At this juncture controversy arose be-
tween the Crescent City Gasllght Company
and the New Orleans Gaslight Company,
which was eventually carried to the Supreme
claiming it had the right to run under the
the act No. 66 Of 1860 from April l, 1875 to
April l. 1896. By the decree OF the Supreme
Court, rendered February, 1875. the plaintih,
the Crescent City GasIight Company, got the
sole and exclusive right to make and veDd
illuminating gas In the city OF New Orleans
for the term OF fifty (50) years from April l,
1875. During the tendency OF this suit, and
before the above mentioned decree was rem
dered, the Legislature passed what seems TO
be special enabling act, authorizing che con-
soidation OF business or manufacturing cor
poratlons or companies then existinR under
general or special law. See act NO l58, 40.
proved December 13, 1874. Under this act
the two ~ companies pretend to have anal"
gamated and under this pretended amalga-
nation the New Orleans Gaslight Company,
the only one known to your experts or the
| people of New Orleans, has raised Its capital
stock to at least $5 100000 In excess OF it's as
SETS by fixing 1t at $40, 100000.
The only evidence before US OF such ANAL
gamation is copy OF a certificate filed In the
Office of the Secretary OF State certifying
that such an ANAL gamation took place April
9, 1876, nine days after the expiration OF the
charter of the New Orleans Gasliaht Com
pany, and prematurely on the part OF the
Crescent City Gasight Company, It not then
being In operation: said certificate was
neither sworn nor subscribed to.
| Your experts would further report that
there Is no legally chartered gasllght com
pany at present 10 operation In the city
''proper" Of New Orleans, the charter OF the
New Orleans Gaslight Company having ex-
pired by limitation and the supreme Court
decision, since the first day of April, 1875.
And would further report that the present
| company styling itself the New Orleans
Gaslight Company, admits that it is acting
and that its only legality IL under the charter
of the Crescent City Gaslight Company, with
which 1t pretends and claims to have con-
No 1853 OF 1874. Without such admission 1t
could have no status In law; yet the history
and knowledge of such company as the Cres-
cent City Gaslight Company is unknown to
the general public, yea, even to the gas-ht-
ters OF New Orleans.
Act No. 1853 OF 1874 was made the basis Of
| the junction between the two opposing claim
ants and the defeated one at present pretend5
| to act although under an obsolete name ana
charter) by the franchises granted to Its
more successful opponent, the Crescent City
Gaslight Company, which had defeated IL In
court. Possession to give title must DO ad-
versary, for q defeated party to hold title
under its successful adversary is contrary to
and privileges" Chief Justice Marshall, Bal
lentines Limitations p. 376
The Legislature would Sit IN vain did IL al
low it's delegated powers to be bartered away
to q third party. Certainly such was not the
spirit of act No. 1853 OF 1874 Therefore the
Crescent City Gaslight Company had no
power after obtaining Judgment against
the New Orleans Gasight Company to dele
the State to the New Orleans Gasllght Com
pany, and the so-called consolidation and
transfer was therefore without authority and
null and void. No notarial act was nassed
4 ~rA. ,F.N~l Ant
i5s Of 1874 referred only to corporations exist
Ing co-equal under general or special laws
and does not cover the question ut Issue, the
New Orleans GasIight Company having ex-
pired by limitation and the other company
being imperative. (See article 434 Revised
Civil Oode) Should the state s'sstain an In
Jury by their pretended consolidation, who
would be responsible? We fall to see. (See
article 1872 Revised Civil Codel
Supposng that the gas company has
charter, 1t should be forfeited for the follow
ing reasons, to wit: The gas company has
been arbitrarily exacting heavy bond from
the as-Htters Of the city as license to earn
O. living, and has demanded exorbttant de-
posits In advance OF service at once unjust
and vicious; 1t claims the right to regulate
the fixtures, workmen and meters and fixes
the price of gas at its own option, shutting
off the chance OF an appeal; thus the public
become subservient to the exacttOns or gas
la instance of the liberality OF the Gas
Company it allows 6 per cent interest per
annum upon the deposits, and yet, should the
consumer fail to pay his gas bill, secured by
the deposit, within three days, discrepancy
In favor OF the company OF 10 per cent ls ex-
acted for the three days.
And further report that the pretended
charter under which said c!mpany claims to
act confines it to the exclusive and sole pur-
pose of manufacturing and vending gas; yet
to the detrment and injury OF large dis
trict the company has erected buildings. oc,,
cupying a quarter OF square OF Kround, and
/. manufacturing ammonia. which, by It's
effiuyia, has reduced the rental value OF prop
erty Immediately In the vicinity at least 40
per cent, and in many other ways.
In conclusion, your experts would report
and advise that an inspector Of gas meters
be- appointed to inspect and test all gas me-
tres annually, that the general public shai
be better protected against the ec pdrte rul-
ing now In vogue by the gas company; the
public generally not understanding the
scientific manipulation OF gas, are left entire-
ly to the mercy Of the vendors.
Il Weights and measures being subject to an
inspection. and believing that there should be
no discrimination between gas and other VEN
Respectfully submitted, by your experts,
FL. WEBER, Expert,
W. H. YATES, Assistant Expert.
p. W. AITKEN,
Chairman Committee.
We, your committee. do therefore offer the
oAAS
foregoing report:
Be it Resoloed. for the reasons detailed In
the above report, that the charters OF the
gas com paDies referred to are hereby de-
clared forfeited, and null and void.
| P. w. AITKEN,
| Chairman of Com mmittee.
/ Mr.. Farmer, Chairman, on behalf Of the
Committee on Ways and Means. reported as
follows:
NEW ORLEANS, March "a, $780,
To the Speaker and Members OF the House o1
| Representatives:
Your Committee on Ways and Means, te
| which WIS referred
Senate bill No ia, entitled
| An act to transfer certain balance IN the
State Treasury, now credited TO the levee
and drainage fund, to the general engineer
fund,
Report on the same favorably, and recon-
mend its passage.
/ Respectfully submitted,
W. W. FARMER. Chairman.