New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-05
DEFEND GAS CONTRACTS.
act At THE SINE TIME.
Oakley and GrOut Issue Statements
Sag City Cans.


10 Mayor Mcclellan Commissioner Oakley, OF
the Department OF Water Supply, Gas and
Electricity and Controller Grout, Tammany
Hall yesterday decided that it was time TO re-
ply 10 the charges which have been made that
the contracts between the city and the Con-
sodated Gas Company and the payment or
rack bills for the lighting of the city meant
loss the city and the payment of an ex-
orbitant price for gas 1t was decided that Com
missioner Oakley and Controller Grout should
each issue statement. and they did so.
Commissioner Oakley issued his statement
'Fpm the Pensacola Club. the Tammany or
ganization of the 18th Assembly District,
with Thomas F. Smith. the secretary of Tam
many Hall. at his right hand. There were those
who thought they detected the phraseology Of
Mr. Smith in the Commissioners statement, but
they. Of course must have been mistaken.
Commissioner Oakley. in addition making
the statement, said that pursuant to Controller
CIRCUITS motion at the Board of Estimate meet
ing on Friday, bill would be drawn by Corpo-
ration Counsel Delany which would authorize the
city TO construct municipal lighting plant
The bill would be introduced at this session of
the legislature.
The Commissioners statement follows:
IN view OF the many misstaternents published re
wish TO declare as emphaticay as ! can that every
thing was done that could be done to safeguard the
interests OF the city In my judgment the contracts
gust executed the most satisfactory made IN
years because they provide for furnishing the CITY
win better lighting and AT lower Inquire than ever
She allegation that the city is charged more for
SIS gas Than the private consumer is as false as
1cqua untrue is the insinuation that secrecy char
Hcterized the negotiations between the representa-
lives -. the gas companies and myself. Everything
was done open and above board. As matter of
TACT The day the contracts closed I told the
newspaper men who questioned about them that
date sas my intention to sign the contracts on that
some criticism has also been made about the de-
~ r. n oh hat
upon in March The fact injunction after
,ncton was obtained restraining the city from
awarding the contracts viii explain the cause OF
his delay. After Justice Gaynor rendered his de-
cislon, ! opened negotiations with the companies
with a view to obtaining a substantial reduction in
Iacombe engineer in chief Of the Bureau of Lamps
and Lighting. who served in the same capacity
byeane he dIoS I'm, i Ina t ~ 5t I'M
electric lighting companies and the city would be
doing splendid work.
feel that my Efforts have not been o in vain The
9Ts na i been 9ceonpsed for the city IN the
the preceding one They also show that a better
county Of New-York and at lower figure than
has heretofore obtained for the same kind of
MR.. CIRCUITS STATEMENT
Mr. Grouts statement dealt principally with
the payment of the back bills of 1903, which he
now considers was proper, but which he
hemently opposed a year ago. His statement
Follows;
It has been said that l SUPP ressed part of Colo
mel Monroe's letters OF last June or misquoted him
he approved only that of the Consolidated Gas
COMPANY The contrary is the case The letters
written in response my inquiry.
! presented them in full 10 the Board of Estimate
newspapers Recently have referred reporters to
these letters. but have not personally quoted Colo
mel Monroe IN any manner, except say that he
had approved the Consolidated Gas contract
also the only one OF these lighting contracts OF
which approved IN advance OF its making, and
My first knowledge OF all the others Including ali
Oakley had signed them and had sent them 10
my office for certsllication Ny only Official power
then was 10 certify as 10 the existence OF the APP
preparation. am not, therefore, in the remotest
manner responsible Tor such contracts or the re
ready said. and l repeat it, that think that Com
as whole made Substantial GAINS lE Tor f the c s5;
no oeia act on P par wb 9 a and IyoSs
he did is immateriaI to my official action
thereafter y i Such opinion Of mine did not even
not know Of it in advance
@icn up to tiS POINT naq gone nothing what
the Consolidated company contract. l had to deal
with the actual facts not with theories hopes
quent action of the CommissioneI which was for
the purpose of gaining certain advantages the
saTily recognized the rates disputed for 1903
s9Gu9 G 'lg lgs P9 s as to The cost of
It's market value? That would mean inquiry into
every detail Of the business, would have required
time Tor months to the embarrassment of other
duties. would have the q OF
money. and, ! have power compel testi-
mony outside Of the city Of New-York, nor from
any one except the claimants themselves, its result
would never be complete
1t would have been followed by tedious and ex-
Densye filtration. the final determination Of which
would have been years hence. All the while the
per cent per annum would be running against the
Offset any reduction IN price Oblainable
While the prospect Of a reduction price after the
making OF the 1904 contracts, would have been re-
mote. 1t seems TO me To be far more to the city's
interest 10 settle as have arranged, getting rid Of
the accrued interest Of $4,000.
l il stated 10y some persons that no claim
interest existed. but there is possible DOUBT that
any which the companies entitled o wi
legally draw interest at per cent per annum from
the time OF the presentation Of their claims the
cate OF payment. That the Corporation Coun-
sells opinion a similar case in 1899 when the city
paid both claims and interest i'm full