New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-09-06
FIGHTING THE GAS TRUST
THE BRIEF IN THE LESTER SUIT SENT
TO ALBANY.

POINTS MADE IN THE OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
STOPPED. PRICES RAISED AND QUALITY
LowERED-THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ASKED To TAKE ACTION
The law firm of Grout. De Fere & Mayer yes
,erdav forwarded to the Attorney General in
Albany its brief I'm the application of John c.
lester for the dissolution OF the gas trust
Known as the Brooklyn Union Gas Company.
Since making the application the firm has been
hard at work gathering afdavits and evidence
20 sustain the contention that this trust is an
illegal combination formed to control the out
nit and price of gas in Brooklyn.
The brief sets forth that there competl-
zion in this line of business in Brooklyn prior
% the combination that resulted in the incor-
poration of this company There were seven
easlight companies all of which have conveyed
their franchises to the Brooklyn Union Gas
Company. Exhaustive figures are given In the
brief 10 show that UP to the time this trust came
;,,o existence there was wholesome competi-
zion among these companies. The reduction of
the price of gas by the williamsburg, the Metro
nolitan and the Nassau companies In 1884 to
on cents is cited as an evidence that there was
q free and benefcent competition.
In proof Of the fact that trust was formed.
ouotation is made from the deposition of E. c.
BENEDICT in his suit against Moore & Schley.
=, 1904 Mr. Benedict who held 1000 shares Of
Williamsburg stock. swore that the defendants
,vare engaged in a scheme to become the owners
ord controllers of the companies involved in the
orlioat,on Mr. Benedict testified that he lent
h,s y 600 shares for the purpose of having a con-
,udation between the various companies af
fscted but instead of that new company. the
prook,yn Union Gas Company. was organized.
,r,ich bv controlling meetings Of the stockhold-
.rs NJ the old companies. compelled them to sci.
,her nroperty and franchises to the new COM
- Mr. Benedct's complaint was that the
,,eusnce Of his stock was used to bring the
Williamsburg company in the deal. and that
e.ooOoo of bonds of the company were
,a,a n certain persons as commissions and ex-
narsss connected with the deal.
eft NAV be fairly Inferred. continues the
,-,et that the purpose of combination to
do that which afterward done, viz TO
a,rta,n the price 81 gas in the cases where it
,os heine supplied at 81 - Ohe highest rate
allowed under the s,atute). and 10 increase the
nrices 70 the highest rate where ii was being
supplied at less than 81 -, in the mean time
deteriorating the quality of the article.
A PERTINENT QUESTION.
What nossible object could the Brooklyn
Union Gas Company nave had" asks the pc
t,ioner in the brief other than the suppress
ing Of competition when II purchased the works
Of the Peoples and Brooklyn Gas companies
for millions Of dollars of its stocks and bonds.
and as soon acquired proceeded to dsmantle
such plants and offer the parts and land for
SALE The BROOKLYN Gas Light Company was
for wears one of the most active competitors OF
the other companies in the city of BROOKLYN
this is the one that the trust was most ANXIOUS
10 disntegrate. AS to the Peoples plant. nav
ing purchased il for 81 .24000o of its stock and
bonds and forthwith dismantled It, the BROOK
Ign Union Company on June 80 io''o' SOLO II
real estate WharVes. docks, buildings ana APP
nur,enances-to the MOllenhauer sugar COM
pany for $4,000. The Brooklyn Union Gas
Company, in the words of the decision IN me
Diamond Match Company case in carrying OUT
its purposes found it necessary In many in
stances to buy large quantity OF useless ma
terial and to pay large and exorbitant prices
for The nronertv purchased. which they could
no, make availa ole. and in many cases In no
other way IL possible To purchase the IN
activity Of manufacturers and those who lnr
tended to enter into the business and VINO
would otherwise become competitors OF the com
pany in trade.
OVERsTEPPING THE LAW.
The brief points that the Brooklyn Union
Gas Company. in laying mains and pipes and
supplying gas in the city without having Sc
cured the consent of the Common Council. is
exercising a privilege not conferred upon 1t by
law. 1t maintains that it is clear that each Of
the seven old companies conveyed its property
and franchise to the Brooklyn Union Gas Com
parv with the intent to create monopoly IN
a necessary Of life. and that such monopoly
has been created, and. as a result the price ad-
yanced The intention Of the ncOrporators OF
the Brooklyn Union Gas Company to establish
a monopoly is chargeable 10 the corporation,
savs the brief The petitioners ask the Attor-
ney-General TO bring suit in equity for a 1udg-
ment directing the Brooklyn Union Gas Com
panv 10 restore TO the seven old companies
the property franchises and plants acquired
from ,hem and directing the seven old com
nancy 70 resume the operation of their plants.