New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-28
MONROE ANSWERS OAKLEY
Says Lighting Monopoly Does Not
Dare to appeal to Courts.

Characterized as "adroit lodging of the issue"
and an answer which answered not" the letter OF
Commissioner Oakley Of the Department OF Water
Supply, Gas and Electricity Mayor Mcclellan,
plying to the letter of the City Club. received
yesterday with some amusement and much criti-
cism by the opponents Of the gas contracts His
attempt to justify his contract prices for lights by
comparing the cost here with the cost in London
Paris and Berlin weak argument, indeed
said they His setting aside of the inference 10 be
drawn from the high prices paid by this city in
comparison with other American cities. by declaring
that the table of prices was misleading, surely
based '1nisinformation, it said
This city, freely acknowledged by Commits
sioner Oakley, has been paying these high prices
for the last ten years although it is the largest
consumer of gas and electricity, while TO private
consumers the prices have been reduced. That the
city paid S146 for a 1000 candle power light when
Commissioner Dougherty was in Office only be-
cause such bid had been accepted by the previous
administration, and Commissioner Dougherty
told by his lawyers that this action binding on
him, so he signed contract
Lawrence WELLER secretary of the City Club. said
he had not received any official reply from the
Mayor to his letter. He had seen Mr. Oakley's
reply printed in the newspapers While I can't
talk freely that version of the reply" said he
there are three points which appeal to me
pertinent in connection with Mr.. Oakley's adroit
arguments. One is that if he had spent r1uch
time in outlining the he has in this reply
some twenty OdyS-lL WOulO nave DeSn TOT the
citys interest If ne would compare the prices the
city pays for lighting with those paid by private
consumers, instead of going far afeld as London
Berlin and Paris for a comparison of municipal
prices. a condition of much moment would DE re-
vealed. His comparison. b. the way. certainly is
open to the criticism he made against Colonel
Monroes 1gures-that conditions being different in
the different cities necessitated varying prices.
Colonel Monroe prepared a statement which
forth his views regarding the Commissioners let
ter, follows:
have read MIR Oakey's statement explaining
how he broke the deadlock and relieved the
city from the embarrassing situation in which it
to enter into Contracts with the lighting Monopoly
at the prices which were considered extortiOnate
MI Oakley takes more advaced stand In sup
port of the monopoly than the monopoly has
Mr., Oakley says the chart which presented to the
Board OF Estimate and ApportiOnment a year ago
Electric light 81 o9heF Rmercan c!ties is put Utterly
uurea bic and absolutely misleading for the pur-
pose of comparison and it has been so character
lied by every electrical expert TO whom 1t has
been submitted. This IS a very broad statement
and dos not coincide with the opinions expressed
BY e1Pe a to e %hs was II once
binding upon the companies IL has always been my
much or as little light as might suit their purpose
in they considered the absence Of contract at
paid At the hearing before the senate commit
tee in 1903 a proposed bill authorize the city
to erect municipal lighting plant the counsel rep
resenting the Consolidated Gas Company. in opposi-
ton 10 this bill refused assume any such post
ton on behalf of the company as that now taken
OF office expired. a branch OF the light
mono served noLce upon me city that II their ols,
which had not been paid for a period of ten
be cut of restraining order was sn|Is5 FOR ~ ~
Mr. Rives then CORPORATION Counsel and tha+ ex
uarte order stands to-day. The company has never
been willing to bring the matter 10 hearing in a
court Of equity. If Mr.. Oakley's view OF the law
IS backed by formal opinion OF the Corpora
public withut delay