The San Francisco call., 1898-03-11

put ask for it. The official interviewed reIuseo to comply, was somewhat curt
 II seemed to me, and l went to Mc-
 Gowen & Squires and asked them te bring suit. The did not lose any
 tlme. think there will be a sort oi run on the gas companies if this little ease breaks the grip with which my
 HVer IS clutched, and it certainly Will There's no particular reason why 3 corporation which has been presented
 With franchise. permitting it to tear
 up streets and measure it's rotten gas
 Snoulo py gift from every customer,
 De enabled to garner an unearned for
 tune Tn addition to that which IL gets
 III legitimate way, SuppoSlng, or
 course, that it's ordinary methods are iegitimate. The patron is at the mercy oi the corporation. It can overcharge
 nlm shamefully, and does so. He has
 no recourse. For the gas company
 which, in the lapse of a year, absorbS rom each customer for gas he does not purn more than the $5 he has put
 up 10 make the plea that it needs se- curlty IS childish. It protects itself as IL goes along. It can always stop sell Ing when the patron defaults and there IS no chance of it's losing as much as 1t has made the patron lose. Besides, It uoes not stand on the footing of the merchant nor landlord. These pay for lhelr commodities and rights, and can not De monopolists, while the most val uaDie possession of a gas company is d q. free slIt which virtually carries with IL the privilege of being monoply. US about time anyhow for the public 70 s nave an accounting of the numerous 20 pieces the gas people hold in trust"
 A F. Morrison of Morrison, Foerster & cope expressed the opinion last evening that the language of the stat ute would admit of but one construc- tlon, and that construction was in taVor or the consumer and against the corporation in event it endeavored to transgress the laws governing it's powers. Whether or not any subse- quent legislation has diminished the eHect or the statute l am unable to say, he said last evening, but if it has not the language of the statute cannot be misconstrued"
 City and County Attorney H. T. Cres- we'll have never given the statute regulating gas companies any particu- lar attention, and am not familiar with It's provisions I should say, though off hand that the companies have no right to demand deposit from consumers and if this deposit is held illegally I do not see why suit cannot be instituted for its recovery.
 Ex-Attorney General A. L. Hart Without looking into the matter closely but from a casual reading of the statute 1 should say that gas com pan1es are required to furnish gas to any applicant upon his performance of the conditions named in the statute The arbitrary demand of a uniform de- posit of S5 from every consumer to be retained as long as they are patrons of the company is not one of the condi- 1 tfons named and therefore connot be enforced
 l think. though. the company could | require the payment in advance each | month or sum approXimating the | amount of the bill, any surplus to be | credited to the next months charge. | In this case, I am inclined to think | hat the plaintiff having deposited the | S5 demanded cannot recover 1t, as 1t would be regarded as a voluntary pay nent. His course, it would seem to ne, would have been to surrender his meter and after receiving his deposit md paying all charges for gas that night be due the company, demand erVlce again, and proceed according to he statute to enforce it.''
 President Crockett, when seen in re- ation to the matter. stated that the erm deposit is a misnomer, the money xacted from persons using gas being olely for the purpose of securing the ompany from any loss through ire pOnS1ble parties where 1t would be for the company to recover. When parties are recommended as be- ng responsible he said no money is xacted from them.
 The system was inaugurated by the dvice of s. M. Wilson. our attorney at hat time," said MT. Crockett, and is
 rule of the company which we con- fder to be only a reasonable protec- ion of our interest"