New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-10
PRICES HIGH, SAYS CIRCUIT.
Controller Says He Could Get No
Lo1eer for Gas-Case Argued.

In an affidavit produced before Justice Dickey, in
! the Supreme Court. Brooklyn. yesterday in the
injunction proceedings brought by Congressman
William r. Hearst TO enjoin the city from paying
its lighting bills for 1903 Controller Grout admits
that the prices charged the city are unreasonably
high, but declares he has been unable to get them
TO reduce their charges and that there other
companies from which light be obtained. The
argument was on a motion continue the tenn
porary injunction
Mr.. Shearn. counsel for Mr. Hearst, took up the
complaint. which alleges that the Mayor, the Con-
| troler and City Chamberlain keenan, entered into
conspiracy 10 pay the bills. The allegations have
already been published in full The proceedings,
he declared. were to restrain the city giving the
Consolidated Gas Company gratuity Of $l.2o00oo
in back claims.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Connolly appearing
for the city and its officials declared that the
allegation that there was conspiracy the
part OF the officials was absurd and that not
word OF argument had been made prove it
William J. Carr, appearing as the Controllers
/ personal counsel, presented Mr. CIRCUITS affidavit
which was a long recital of his connection with
the bills in question. He practically laid the blame
on Commissioner Oakley Of the Department OF
Water Supply, Gas and Electricity saying that in
accepting bids for 1904 the same price the Com
missioner practically made it impossible to dispute
further the prices charged before. Before that he
declares, he had refused to pay the bills hoping
/ litigation would ensue in which the question of the
amount of liability of the city would be determined.
But in response advertisements for bids for fur
nishing public lights 1904 bids and proposals.
We're received from the gaslight and electric light
companies which based upon the same units
OF price as those contained in the bids mentioned
in the complaint herein and which had been re-
jected by the Board Of Estimate and Apporttu.l-
ment and by the former Commissioner Of Water
Supply, Gas and Electricity hereinbefore stated.
'Deponent believed. and still believes, that the
making Of contracts fC- 1894 at substantially the
same units OF price charged in 1903 made mp1ao-
tcabIe, especially IN view Of the other facts
1903 bills and deponent thereupon took up for con-
sderation the question of the advisabilty for the
CITY interest, or the adJuSt of the outstanding
CLAIMS Tor 1893 That in considering such advsA-
making or the contracts for 1904 had certain
/ extent fixed market price for gas electricity
C0hroHer circuit dIsaVowed any responsibility in
making these contracts He called attention the
TACT that the companies entitled to per cent
interest on all claims that should be declared valid
from The time OF fling such claims. The figures
regarding the amounts paid unpaid were err
roneousy given in the complaint. according to the
gardirg them:
As TO the bills for gas lighting. the total amount
OF said bills from January J. 1903 to March I6. 1904.
was a2S3.552 p, and the amount paid on account
thereof 70 the companies hereinafter stated was
$l2s059 g.. le2TinS balance claimed to be due by
the Conpank these bills of Sl.l65. 492 "a
That regards the electric lighting. the amount
Of bills presented by the companies for services
from January l. 1908. 20 March Is 1904 81 1874.
80 5, that the amount paid account to such
Cornpo2.es in the manner hereinafter stated vas
S24l.l6 81. leaving a balance claimed 70 be due by
after March 16 1904, are under the contracts made
for le0i."
the gas and electric light companies without pre1u-
dice the claims rights Of either side but that
majority of the companies refused TO accept that
/ amount.