New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-08-11
HAS BROOKLYNA GAS TRUST,
AN ATTEMPT TO BRING ACTION AGAINST
THE COMBINATION.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ASKED TO SUE FOR
THE ANNULMENT OF THE UNION coMPANY.s

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ASKED TO SUE FOR
THE ANNuLMENT OF THE UNION coMPANY's
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES PRO AND CON
Albany, Aug. 1o-The consolidation of seven gas
companies of Brooklyn into one corporation under
the name OF the Brooklyn Union Gas Company was
reviewed at hearing before Attorney Genera
Hancock to-day. The matter came up on applica-
ton OF John c. Lester asking the Attorney Gen
eral to begin proceedings against the consolidated
corporation and against the individual com
panies which were combined into one corpora
ton TO annul their charters and 10 restrain them
from violating the Antitrust law. Paul F. De-
fere appeared for the petitioner. and William T.
Dykman. of Brooklyn. and Thomas Thatcher. Of
New-York. represented the Brooklyn Union Gas
Company.
Mr. Defere said that the application was made
Ter the reason that the several companies were
combined In order to raise or maintain the present
price of gas in Brooklyn. and that the consolidated
corporation operated as monopoly in restraint Of
trade and thus violated the Antitrust laws Of the
State Counsel for the Brooklyn Union Gas Com
pany declared that the petition Of the applicant
involved nothing substantial against the company
except that it took conveyances of the properties
and rights of the several other companies. Mr.
Thatcher said:
If this authorized by law. then there is no
charge IN me petition as against II OF anything
which could he made the ground Of an action 10
NdCdte It's Cnarter and annu Its existence. NO law
was violated in carrying out the intention Of the
Brooklyn Union Gas Company. 1t cannot be
claimed that mere contract OF purchase by one
corporation from another. which only by reason
of the transfer OF ownership affects the power of
one to do business. is contract whereby compe-
tition Is restrained prevented.
1t is not true that the contracts of purchase or
vancing prices Not only was there no comolna-
tion of corporations involved in the purchases
maze o BY hd nT Of 9 %GS e
restraint of trade or for the prevention OF com
Of ny ar n on n f ponev and
business of another Is not unawf1i. as creating
decisions In this State
from the other companies the Brooklyn Union Gas
Company violated the law so that ground OF for
quire that an action he brought to annul it's exist
ence. What has been accomplished has worked to
has not been increased on the other nand. the H.
Illuminating power has been improved. reduction
lion. this company being ready and willing TO enter
into contract with the city to that effect
Mr.. Dykman said that Tire consolidation Of the
seven companies did not do with competition.
as no competition had existed Each company
operating in different part OF BROOKLYN The con
with view of economy in management than any
MIR Defere retorted that there was great public
complaint against the Brooklyn Union Gas Com
pany. both as to price and quality Of gas furnished
lyn severely criticised the consolidation. This com
pany had capital and bond issue aggregating
$50 10000 all but $4,000 of which was issued for the
stock and bonds OF the seven companies
Mr.. Dykman asserted that Mr. Lester the petit
toner. a stakeholder In the Mutual Gas and
Electric Company, which was trying TO get permits
sion from the Brooklyn Common Council TO operate
in Brooklyn Mr. Defere denied this. and said he
had no doubt that the Mutual Company could secure
the consent of the Brooklyn Common Council had
1t as much money the Brooklyn Union Company.
He said there doubt that the combination
was n MONOPOLY and that the Attorney General
should exercise his power under the law of the
bring action
This closed the hearing. and the Attorney General
reserved his decision