The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-06-01
HAHOS OFF 90 CENT GAS CASE.
trPaRNE fOr ~ SgeIIvFs ~
IsseR ~ IVIl N(fl0N


NHAfNHN bNYNHfFfN NNffsNH W NitHHfFf W
asass ~ Nas tswEsHy me- thsf
Nssity aeaWsgps elH ~ RefpslW slsre
me FefeVs1 tawsg itss te'eH Ffest
ftsfes fsyeesrW n NE Hierr'us cruf'
hsn,i@l then yesterday = dertstvn fsHyIna
traf ageileatfrNs 4 = N lunrtiuns ~ fss'fsiu
NE toeasHtafs,t Ots fasHtaHy fflu ~
muviha msiera m eaes stefs aHs 'tp"fs
fefpHi N nv " . fste Wshef ihhn ~
eeH's The detlaloH ~ys
ssstsiHs ne t~ astiy fot y fpsfir is'sf
miHafiHH NJ ihesa sevFfft mailHNf aHd ~
site No fisluv4s fut thr us'tiuHr' IN m"
mfNisarua egAeeNilHe - w rrrHffuniff ~
efFfv fhta msffeg W me trreitf'e btvifinH
hefafa me swimmer VssafltH. y seems iesif
AhlH ~ asts mefeiy nv rerettfturs tithsr'
defefftns me dafisirN ~ permit 'ha' ~
hsaaftva stamiHafisa W mo Fufhutlties
Whta ma iugpuftsHrs " ma inS''Hf fFItd
hastily wefe N nS' Tor ~ rfueefsitHRa
In tho tatei states tBnst ths iHihne'lon
and fhs m~antsmua wnrih have ~ laatr
The presumption sSisfine IN fav0f ~ he
rrnsftu,lpnalty ~ . lesislstlvN fci and The
wctl fcessniSfi rIie that = touft ~ Hprrial
term shout not. esrep' Nv me %rleafsa' W
fnaat e,tsetne rnaas drriafe legislation M.
rnnasH u,lahal. sm ~ col Tor Tho ptesent
saforrament ~ tho rate iced nv 7 . lHaia.
tute by srantins tho fstirf PRAYED fnt Nv
1hs moving PARTIES
rho prr.sn, legal rate. untTl successfully
nuiilhe T. IL 'ha nsed Nv tbs Legislature
The defendant has tho riah, N teaf thas rat"
by trial II has not vt pleaded here. and the
Court would not anticipate the result by
holding that there has been an Invasion 81 .
property right when tina, invasion can no
established only by tho trial Of u complicated
Issue Of fact Rut In nv opinion these motions
should be denied. owing 20 the assumption
Of Jurisdiction by tho United states Courts
That the defendant has the Right 70 test tho
reaaonablene-a NJ the r 10 nv judicial review
quite indepondens Of the declaration made
by legislative nat. would seem 20 be clear
The defendant was. therefore. merely within
its constitutional rights In INVOKING Federal
Jurisdiction. That II did not originally
lnvoks state Jurisdiction. where the same
questions might have been passed upon
may be q matter Of regret, but II Ia not one
for condemnation. nor should II be permitted
TO Influence the Court TO disregard well estab-
llahed principles OF comfy. In the last
analysis the same questions are involveI In
the suits tending In the United States Court
and this court. The ultimate nature Of the
relief In either Jurisdiction depends on the
question whether or not the rate fixed by
the Legislature Ia so un~reasonaHl lie as 70 amount
10 n COnTNratlOO OI pTOp'i'p ~ ~"
has by its preliminary Injunction taken
unto itself the determination OF the same
questions that underlie these motions; and
accepted practice. founded on very wise
rules. forbids indirect interference by the
State courts.
John A. Garner Of the firm Of Shearman
h Sterling. attorneys for the Consolidated
Gas Company, said yesterday that the i'll
ness Of Joseph H. Choate would not, he
thought, result in a request for an adjourn
ment Of the argument on the 50 cent gas
Injunction in the United States Circuit Court.
Judge Lacombe has set dow the argument
on the application of the Consolidated Gas
Company to continue the present restrain
ing order until the constitutionality OF the
law has been determined for Monday at
II O'Clock.
4 In case Mr.. Choate is not able to make
the principal argument for the gas company
II is understood that some member OF the
firm of Sherman 4 Sterling will present the
gas company's case. II is expected, however,
that Mr., Choate will be able to appear HIM
self.
Another action along the same lines Of the
Consolidated Gas Company's present suit
filed in the United States Circuit Court
yesterday. 1t was that of the Standard
Gas Light Company Of New York. This
is the fourth Of the kind.