The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-22
GAS MAKING ANALYZED
CITY ATTORNEY FILES HIS ANSWER
IN INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS.
Shows that Company Can Make Per
Cent. at the Seyenty-Five-Cent
Ordinance Rate.

Cnlted states Court the city'S answer to
the bill Of complaint filed by the Indianap-
oils Gas Company In the injunction proceed
ings against the 75-cent gas ordinance. The
United States Court granted a temporary
injunction, enjoining the city from enforc-
ing the ordinance, and the proceedings now
are upon the question to whether that
Injunction shall be made permanent or be
dissolved
The answer recites the history of the
plaintiff company Under an ordinance ap-
proved in April, 1876, there was Incorporated
the Citizens Gas-light and Coke Company.
1t laid about ten miles of pipe and distrib-
uted gas from its plant on Pratt street.
The indianapolis Gas-light and Coke Com
pany had already been in existence for ten
years, and the ordinance authorizing the
existence of the second company provided
that the new company should furnish gas
at least ten years and should not CONSOLE
GATE with any other gas company. The an
sWer charges that, in two years from its
creation, the stockholders, officers and di-
rectors surreptitiously and without the
knowledge of the officers or inhabitants of
sad city consolidated with the Indianap-
OILS Gas-iight and Coke Company. The ma
Jority of the stock of the Indianapolis com
pany was owned by Messrs. Allen NJ and
Stoughton A. Fletcher, jr., and Francis M.
Churchman. After the consolidation two
oIlces were maintained, so that the public
was led to believe, 1t is alleged, that there
We're two separate companies but there was
no competition, and everything was con-
trolled by the Fletchers and Churchman.
The answer next sets forth the manner in
which the control of the Citizens Company
passed openly into the hands Of the FIetch-
ers and Churchman. The property of the
Citizens Company was permitted, or
caused, to be sold at sheriffs sale by the
Indianapolis Company, it is charged, and
was purchased by John S. Harrington as
agent for the company, and by him decided
to John +. Holt, an employee Of the Indian
apo1s Company, no consideration being
specified in the deed for the transfer. The
Fletchers and Churchman then organized
the Electric-lighting and Gas-heating and
Illuminating Company of indianapolis, and
Holt transferred the stock and property of
the Citizens Company to this new COM
pany. The defendant, the city of Indian
apolis, AYERS that all these transfers were
made without it's knowledge or consent. In
1851 the stock of the electric company was
reduced to $4,000, which, if this company is
considered the successor to the Citizens
the ordinance, which required the capital
stock to be not less than 100000 In 1879
the Indianapolis Company assumed charge
of the plant of the Citizens Company and
used it for the manufacture and distribution
Of gas.
THE SALE TO THE SYNDICATE.
In 1887 the indianapolis Natural-gas Com
pany was organized, with a capital stock Of
100000, of which the Fletchers and Church
man owned $4,000. This company used
part of the mains of the Citizens Company.
In 1880, the answer says, the Fletchers and
Churchman, being in absolute control of all
the four companies, or such Of them as were
left, sold all to a syndicate represented by
h. Z. Benedict, Charles r. Dieterich, r. j.
JermanoWski and Henry j. Dawson, of New
YORK, the consideration being $2O0OOO0
These men organized the Indianapolis Gas
Company, which entered into competition
with itself by the sale Of natural gas.
Answering the complaints OF the plaintiff
company, the document filed by the city
attorney says the plaintiff cannot claim it
suffered by the introduction of natural gas
because none of the persons or companies
who might have succeeded to the rights
of the Citizens Gas-light and Coke Com
pany ever sold any gas except as the agent
OF the indianapolis Gas-light and Coke
Company or the indianapolis Gas Company.
and for the further reason that more gas
is now sold by the Indianapolis Gas Com
pany than was ever sold in the city before
the introduction of natural gas. The same
argument is advanced against the claim
that electricity has injured the business of
furnishing Illuminating gas. 1t is further
argued that the reduction In the rate per
fIn11 a,,1
company for the reason that it would great
ly increase the number of consumers This
was the experience in other cities, the an
swer claims.
The answer denies the truth of the state
the natural and artificial departments of
the Indianapolis Gas Company are separate.
1t claims that, so far as the stock and
franchises, upon which the mortgage in
debtedness rests, are concerned, both plants
are considered one property, and that the
payment of dividends upon stock and in
terest on Indebtedness is made out of the
receipts from both of said plants, said re-
celpts being treated a common fund
The answer continues further:
UNFAIR TAX APPORTIONMENT
The defendant submits to the court
whether. by reason of the fact that the
plaintiff has so commAngled the business of
said two plants by its own voluntary act.
1t ought to be permitted to make mere esti-
mates as to the proportion of the salaries.
taxes and other joint expenses of such
plants ought to be apportioned to
each for the purposes of this case; and it
denies, upon its information and belief, that
all of the plaintiffs real estate, with the
exception of one parcel. in said city is used
exclusively in connection with its artificial
gas business and belongs thereto, the fact
being, defendant is informed and be-
lieves and so charges, that a consider
able part of the real estate of plaintiff
upon which taxes are assessed is vacant
ground and not used at all in connection
with the manufacture Of artificial gas while
the most valuable real estate of plaintiff in
said city upon which taxes are assessed is
the plaintiffs office building, which is val
ued for taxation at $2l9 $50, and is not more
especially devoted to one of such plants
than the other-the said building being
large, modern, ten-story office bui. ding, built
for rental, speculative or investment pur-
poses, and not for use by the plaintiff ex-
cept in so far as the first, or ground, floor
thereof might be necessary TO be used by it
for office purposes by both said plants,
wherefore it submits that the apportion-
ment of two-thirds of the total taxes paid
by plaintiff as an expense of its said arti-
fetal gas plant for the purposes of this
case would inequitable and unfair"
The answer charges that the bill of COM
plant was inaccurate in regard to the