The Irish standard., 1897-12-04
CORPORATION FRANCHISES.

NUNfUNA fNANNHl0Eos d
At last Monday evenings session of
the Minneapolis charter commission
three attorneys, representing corpora
tions, were present to look after the
interests of their employers. The first
was r. G. Evans, national Republican
committeeman for Minnesota, who made
an ex-parte appeal in behalf of the Gas
Light company and vehemently declar-
ed that tswas an extraordinary claim
that any one should assmue to say what
should be the price of gas. In Mime
apolis there are $4,000 meters. and
about 5000 consumers, serving perhaps
$4,000 people, or only 121. per cent Of
the population, and the charge is ol0y
ST. 80 net
The eloquent attorney grew wrathy
when speaking OF GO cent gas in Glas-
gov and so cent gas in Birmingham and
referred to the fact that while in Glas
gov the wages are only So. 40 per week.
the Minneapolis Gas Light company
pays not less than $3.50 a day, or GO
cents more per week. Mr.. Evans said
| nothing about tariff. but after grandil
oquent peroration, which was listened
to with delight, he took his seat.
He was followed by George B. Flan-
merry. attorney for the Minneapolis Gen.
eral Electric Light company, who OPEN
ed with a general statement Of his op-
position to the proposed control of city
franchises. He was interrupted by Mr..
Gjertsen, who asked him some awk
ward questions and read kilograms from
Detroit and Chicago, giving the cost
| Of lighting in those cities, and showing
it was much less than in Minneapolis.
The next attorney to address the
commission was Judge M. B. Koon. who
represented the Twin City Rapid Tran
sit company, of which Tom Lowry is
president. Judge Koon is apompous
individual. who is very dogmatlc in his
ASSERTIONS. He came from Michigan
some twenty years ago and succeeded
in getting on the district court bench,
which he soon abdicated to become gen.
eral counsel Of the street car corpora
tion. He started out by saying that he
favored public ownership Of franchises,
and so far as the interests of the street
railway were concerned he favored it's
purchase and operation by the city. OF
course. no one believed that he meant
what he said, and the commission soon
realized that the judge was only eXhib-
ting the art of the practiced corporation
attorney when he exclaimed: But gen
tlemen. why should the city undertake
such business? Why should it be said
that the street railway and the lighting
companies are public service corpora
tions? Why is street railroads or light
ing service any more public service than
tho furnishing Of meat, clothing or any
other necessity? If the city is going
into parternalsm why should it not
furnish meat and clothing? Why do
you not go after the coal trust? AS n
taxpayer l object to saddling upon
the city the cost of a lighting or street
railway plant. 1t is not the city's busi-
ness
Mr.. Haynes had the temerity of ask
Ing Judge Koon how he distinguished
between city ownership of waterworks
and lighting works, for instance, and
the judge condescended to answer that
water is a necessity while lighting Is a
luxury. Having given this sagacious
reply, the judge continued: II protest
price of gas or street railway rates. or
otlier public service as unjust. You. as
one Of the interested parties. select the
men who are to fix the price of my conf
modify. If l should make such bar
gain with one of you, you would set
to fix the prices of our rates. gentle
men, you are attempting something that
is scoundrelly wrong"
The members Of the commission were
probably intimiiated by this upright
Judges language. and none dared to in
terrogate him except Commissioner
Haynes, who timidly asked. What Is
the limit Of your franchise. judge?" In
snaring tones the Judge answered:
Fifty years. and 1t is half expired"
The Pooh Bah of the Street Railway
company went on in this strain at con-
siderable length until Henry Gjertsan
brought him to a full stop. Winston,
Haynes and Child then questioned him,
but the judge gave them very little in
formation. AS regards the taxes paid
by his corporation he thought that mat
ter concerned the assessor and not them.
"What does the assessor value your fran
chses at?" asked Mr.. Child, and the
following Is the judges reply: II don't
know anything about that. I only
know that if the assessor does not as
sess 1t properly he does not perform lis
duty. AS to that. the company, like
all other taxpayers. tries. Of course, TO
get as low an assessment as it can. All
taxpayers do that l know l do. 1t is
our business to skin the assessor and
get low valuation il we can"
Rev. VIM. Wilkinson, who stumped the
state last fall for "honest money WAS