The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-05-02
RESISHS IHg 80 CENT GAS LAW
eAs rOwPASY AsNs q. r. conn
FOR IvJCSCTIOyA
Uee,ases Tna' N n CssIects OHsy ~ TeHts
NV n can NeVeV Get he 0theF ~
Csuts ahOuld ne tsw Ne 0%vsVtRPswH
-Tests Act Ceaasrasesy sad Veia.

fats Act C0aasrasesy sad Sesa.
The Consolidated Gas Company hogan
on action IN the United states Circuit Cour,
yesterday 10 restrain tho enforcement
Of the N cent eas law. The complaint,
which WIS aisd by Sherman \ Sterling
Of ~ Wall street. names 90 defendants
Julius NJ Mayer. Attorney General; Will
lam Trsvers jerome. District Attorney
Of New York county; y. v Gunnison, j r.
Davies and IT, T sheldon Of the state Gas
Commission, and the city Of New York,
The company charges that tho N cent sas
Iaw Is connscatorv Of private property In
o~ontraventton Of the Federal Constitution.
II also attacks the constitutionslity 81 tho
Law comforting it, powers on The state
Gas Commission. writs Of injunction are
asked for and q decree decla ring the law
void.
The COMPANY offers. II an iniu notion Is
granite at once, TO turn over TO the court
all tho moneys collected above the 80 cent
rate while tho suit Is being adjudicated.
these moneys to he disposed Of according
to the result.
The general allegation in the bill Is that
the law deprives the company Of a reason-
able profit, although gas at 81 IL cheaper
than IL Is anywhere else in the State. But
the most striking averment is that the
act Is loaded up with heavy penalties that
threaten ruin to the company il it even seeks
to test in the courts the validity of the law.
On this head it says that il the COM
pany Is compelled to collect now but so
cents pending suit, it will never be able to
collect the rest after the gas is burned
IL the suit is decided in its favor, and that
the amount thus lost will be enormous.
On the other hand, If it charges 81 pending
suit, with a promise of rebate should it
lose the case, it is apparently liable to
81, 900 penalty for every monthly offence,
or, on 800, 600 customers, more a four
billions Of dollars a year, while the alleged
overcharge, should the law be upheld,
would be n complete defencs to any col
lection whatever. So, threatened as II
is with a reduction OF its gross profits by
one-ffth and of its net profits by two
thirds. it is further threatened with enor-
nous loss on one hand and with ruin on
the other, while it tests the law. Where's
fore the injunctions are prayed for. The
bill also asks that the defendants be sub
posnaed TO answer on a day 70 be fixed,
On the unreasonableness Of the eighty
cent price the bill is voluminous. The
company says that 10 per cent. on a property
Of $50, O0O, 900 would be q fair return; that
the State Gas Commission to which the
Legislature unlawfully delegated legisla-
tive power to fix the price by its W
methods, with a power of review, unlaw-
fully delegated to the Appellate Division,
threw out the net value Of its special fran
chise, assessed at $24 900 900 by the State
Tax Commissioners, as well as good will
and other intangible property on which
it ia entitled to q fair return and determined
that the whole property was worth 100000
600, whereas there is s02 900 900 in plant
and investment besides the $24, 600 900
franchise. With eighty cent gas the an
nual net profits will not exceed 81 $3.50 'ooo'
or less than "a per cent. on $50, 900 900.
There are other allegations of injustice
and confscation, and it is specified that
the act making the price to the city rs cents
is void, because it offers special privileges
TO one consumer.