The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-04-12
Committee on Public Education, reported as

10 the Speaker and Members OF the House
Representatives.
| I am instructed by your committee, t
whom was referred Senate bill No. 17s, to re
| port favorably on same. and recommend tha
| 1t do pass. T. j. BUTLER, Chairman.
On motion of Mr.. Butler, and under a SUE
| pension OF the rules,
| Senate bill No. 17S,
| An act to authorize and empower the Stat
Board Of Education, or Its legal successor, t
| sell any property under Its control heretofor
| purchased for State normal schools, and t
| appropriate the proceeds thereof, and an
| rents derived from such property, in main
| taining normal schools and departments Il
| the State for the professional training an
improvement of teachers for public schools,
Was taken up on second reading, under tn
favorable report of the Committee on Publ
Education.
The bill was passed to third reading.
On motion of Mr.. Aitken, and under sus
pension OF the rules the following report wa
taken up:
REPORT OF EXPERT AND ASSISTANT EXPERT
APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE THE AFFAIR."
AND CHATTER OF THE CRESCENT CITY GAS
LIGHT COMPANY, AND ALSO OF THE NEW
ORLEANS GASLIdHT COMPANY.
NEW ORLEANS, March -. 1880.
To the Gentlemen of the Committee of House
OF Representatives. State of Louisiana:
Your experts find that the New Orleans
Gaslight Company was first incorporated
February z, 1929, which charter was declared
forfeited by noncompliance with section
of said act, wherein charter was granted
In 1888, giving exclusive privilege to j. Fl
Caldwell to Introduce and vend gaslights In
the city OF New Orleans for the term OF
twenty-five (25) years, and an tnteregnum OF
two (2) years occurred In the life of the New
charter was granted to j. FL. Caldwell and
others. under the name and title Of the New
Orleans Gaslight and Banking Company, for
forty (40) years, which act Of incorporation
repealed all previous acts relating thereto.
By act No. 100 1916. the New Orleans Gas
light and Banking Company surrendered to
the State that part of Its franchise granting
the privilege OF banking.
The charter was again amended In 1854, by
act No. 105, 80 as to lower the price of gas
from SO to 81 80 per one Thousand cubic feet.
By act of 1860, No. &C. the charter of 1885
was extended for twenty (20) years, from April
!, 1875, until April 1, 1896, under certain con-
ditions. Said act has since been declared I'M
by the Supreme Court, for the
reason that the objects Of the act were not
In its title. (See Annual Report,
1850
Under act No. 81 of 1870 another Richmond
appeared In the field In the shape OF the Cres-
cent City Gaslfght Company, chartered for
fifty (50) years, with capital stock OF $3,O00,-
200, which was to go into operation ON April
|, 1875, and was by section IL OF said act,
within the space of ten n0) years. to have
completed its works and to be In a condition
20 supply the city of New Orleans with gas
md In case of failure the charter would be
lull and void. Said section has never been
complied with
Tha ohortor e,id rro,oop+ CI4-, r.alt-L4
company was amendef by act No. LOG of 1878,
diving power under section to issue bonds
limited to S1,000,000, secured by mortgage
lDon the works and property OF said corpora
Ion.
At this juncture controversy arose be-
nd the New Orleans Gaslight Company, |
7hich was eventually carried to the Supreme |
'ourt-the New Orleans Gaslight Company
tanning 1t had the right to run under the
ct No. 66 OF 1860 from April l, 1875, to
.pril l, 1895. By the decree OF the Supreme
ourt, rendered February, 1876, the plaintiff,
be Crescent City Gaslight Company, got the
ole and exclusive right to make and vend
Illuminating gas In the city OF New Orleans
,r the term Of fifty (50) years from April /,
375.. During the tendency Of this suit, and
efofe the above mentioned decree was rem
cred, the Legislature passed what seems to
g a special enabling act, authorizing the con-
1lidation OF business or manufacturing cor
orations or companies then existing under
eneral or special law. lSee act No. 1853, ap-
roved December 10, 19749 Under this acti
le two ~ companies pretend to have ANAL
amated, and under this pretended amaIga-
lation the New Orleans Gaslight Company,
le only one known to your experts or the
eople Of New Orleans, has raised Its capital
,ock to at least S5,000,000 In excess of its as
It's, by fixing 1t at $10000000.
The only evidence before us of such ANAL
amation Is copy of certificate filed In the
flee OF the Secretary Of State, certifying that
lch an amalgamation took place April 9,
rs, nine days after the ex piration of the char
r of the New Orleans Gaslight Company,
ty Gaslight Company, it not then being In
said certificate was neither sworn
" subscribed to.
Your exports would further report that {
ere is no legally chartered gaslight company {
present In operation In the city proper" Of
ow Orleans, the charter Of the New Orleans .
aslight Company having expired by Hmita-
N and the Supreme Court decision, since {
9 first day OF April, 1875.
And would further report that the present
mpany, styling itself the New Orleans
lsllght Company, ADMITS n that It Is acting
the Crescent City Gaslight Company, with
lich 1t pretends and claims to have con-
lidated upon April 8, 1875, by virtue of act
}. 1913 of 1874. Without such admission 1t !
uId nave no STATUS IN law, YET the history G
d knowledge Of such company as the Cres- :
ut City Gaslight Company Is unknown to e
9 general public, yea, even to the gas-ftters t
New Orleans.
Act No. 1853 Of 1874 was made the basis of =
. junction between the two opposing claim t
ts, and the defeated one at present pretends G
act (although under an obsolete name and d
arter) by the franchises granted toits more =
ccessful opponent. the Crescent City Gas p
hit Company. which had defeated 1t 10 Ii
lrt, Possession to give title must be adj c
rsary, for defeated party to hold title un- !,
r its successful adversary is contrary to 1t
accepted principles OF Limitation Of powers v
d privileges" Chief Justice Marshall, Bal o
ltines Limitations, p. 376. :,
The Legislature would Sit In vain did 1t al Il
y It's delegated powers to be bartered away u
a third party. Certainly such was not the G
rit Of act No. 1853 OF 1874. Therefore the "
escent City Gaslight Company had no .
wer after obtaining Judgment against the Il
W Orleans Gasight Company to delegate I'll
, franchises held by it directly from the a,
lite to the New Orleans GasIight Company, -,
i the So called consolidation and transfer "
s therefore without authority and null and
d. No notarial act was passed imperative "a