New-York tribune., 1906-06-04
GAS FIGHT ON TO-DAY.
ATTACK ON FRANCHISES.
". P. Barr to Giue City's Ans1cer
in T.. S. District Court.

Corporation Counsel Delany to-day, in the United
States District Court. before Judge Iaconbe, VIII
attack the validity Of the franchises of the Con-
sodated Gas Company The company Few DAYS
ago brought action against the city and the state
restraining the city from carrying into effect the
provisions OF the law reducing the price of gas
from 81 to 50 a thousand feet. Judge La
conbe granted a temporary injunction against the
city. and now the company is trying to have the
Injunction made permanent Judge Lacomhe or
dered that the old should remain in force, hut
that the difference between the old and the new
rate 20 a thousand should be depc sted with
the court pending final decision.
Il is the intention Of the litigants TO carry the
action from the district court the United States
Supreme Court in order TO expedite as far as pos
sihIe the action under way.
William P Burr. Of Mr.. Delany's staff will pre-
sent the citv's argument IN the printed answer
TO the company's complaint the city denies the
allegations contained in the paragraph or sub
division Of the bill of complaint numbered 7; and
Furthermore alleges that the said Consolidated Gas
Company Of New York is not and never was
corporation organized as alleged in the said para
graph T. and further. that the companies alleged
in said paragraph r to have been consolidated
were not al or before said consolidation. as al
legged, duly organized and existing under the laws
OF the State of New York. with property, powers
and franchises as alleged in said paragraph T. "
Continuing. the cirys answer says:
Defendant further alleges that il is The largest
9InPaLE' ana az Jh5J 10y an eHS % I4 u2i 80 e qe Tr On
OF the books OF the said Consolidated Gas ILght
coIJnt9nrs snS angt1aer. fC- rarI,issini 10 make
which accounting. examination and inventory this
1T viii conclusTeiv appear th5t the price Of gas
the city OF New York fixed bv sta tute al - cents
per thousand cubic feet is far more than sufficient
10 repay TO the said Consolidated Gas Light Com.
pany fair and reasonable profit upon the cost Of
nsnufacJure and distribution Of gas 10 the said
For a second separate and distinct defence the
BELIEF That said S6nsoGated Gas company owns
or controls every corpora ton with one unImporant
Company, engaged in manufacturing and supplying
gas or electricity for ilqmnatng Purposes or dis
and The Bronx in the city OF New York said gas
plaintiff corporation was formed for the purpose OF
regulating and controlling and does regulate and
electricity in the boroughs Of Manhattan and The
sad plaintiff further organized 10 and does
prevent competition in the manufacture sale and
distribution Of gas and electricity for lighting ana
other purposes IN said BOrOughs of Manhattan and
plaintiff Of all the said other corporations created
and was for the purpose OF creating estatHshlng
in the citv of Naw Y5Tk 10 control the pricer
tr-cty for lighting and other purposes in the said
Boroqghs OF Manhattan and The Bronx. and such
and IS, by reason thereof against public policy,
under which such consolidation Of said companies
@ mas & 9ee9 eneeIeq are asainS pg94c IonGMy M l4egal
Of 1899 Of the State OF New York.
That the said Consolidated Gas Company is a
monopoly. and IN consequence there is no standard
or market price value for either gas or electricity
the city Of New York and that the only manner in
which such market value can be ascertained is
lhToush an examination and inspection of its books
actual cost Of production af,5 dtstrfbtfon nf he
sts slpIiec ny IT, and adding thereto suff-
the money actually invested in the business. with
due regard 10 rhe hazard involved
That the plaintiff. a public. or auasi-pubIc
-b+ - S5'Tp2Lrattlon, was and is bound 70 furnish
'i-rled 70 recover only the fair value of the same
me defence alleges and shows on information
atc ~ neLe- mat at the time of the commencement
n+fn - corporation duly incorporated for the pur-
ihat he New York Gas Light Company the Man
ricrs1 CO -. !lt lily OF New york the Mu-
me Harlem Gas Light Company were not corpo-
l4ILS GUY orgaoized and existing under the laws
ana franchises. alleged in the bin Of com plant
az az RTor 70 or since the time Of the consolidation
alleges that said Consolidated Gas COMPANY did
a9l become the owner of the franchises or consents
operate mains pipes and conductors as alleged in
& me hlH OF complaint: that it does become the
oNG-rr or entitled 70 maintain and operate the
predecessor companies. that # did not iar % ,6I ~
E, EfW 4ork with the consent Of the municipal au-
'hoTlues' as alleged IN said complaint
The city submits along with its answer = long
alHaaVlt from William D. Marks. consulting en-
slHeeT ana siatistlcian, who makes specially OF
me construction and operation Of gas and electric
Asht and power enterprises. Mr Marks presents a
Ie'4e" Of the finding Of the state commissions
concerning the operations and finances of the local
gas companies. Most Of the data was brought out
hy the Stevens committee and later by Charles f.