The Washington times., 1907-12-07
THOMAS LOSES FIRST
BLOOD IN GAS FIGHT
lcontlnued from First Page.l


he said that the function Of the court
IN this instance was purely Of an an
cillary or. advisory nature. confined first
te the ascertainment Of the casn value
OF Inc plant and second TO ascertain the
necessary cost of the construction OF
future extensions or 1nlargements Of
the plant.
An the court is asked 10 do" he
salo, and all the court is required or
allowed TO do under this section in ref
eTence 10 this matter, is to ascertain the
actual cash value of tne plant. IL Is not
permitted or requested 10 render any
verdict or decree. II Is not required 20
pass upon any matter OF law or to con-
strue the statute II is simply per-
mitted 10 ascertain fact as the result
or a computation, and that fact is. what
Is the actual cash value OF tne com
panys plant as expressed II. currency"
Contention of Thomas.
What the company does. or what use
II makes after this information has
been obtained, Mr. Thomas said, does
not concern the court. The Information
may never be used or applied The
stock, which Is to be based upon tho
actual cash value OF the plant. may
never be issued. The stockholders Of
the company may refuse to agree TO
the increase OF the capital, they are
not bound and can not be bound by
any judgment or decree OF the court
IN this case to increase the cash value
OF TIA plant.
Mr.. Thomas called attention to the
TACT that. the petition did not show
that any action whatever had been
taken by the stockholders or directors
looking TO an increase OF fits capital
stock. The corporation itself filed the
petition, he said, and IL Is not pre-
hnm ha
presented TO the stockholders.
The petition, as provided by law, Is
eI C-rte," he said Whether the in
crease OF stock will ever be made as
before stated, Is prOblematical. ana the
only way, in such case that the stock
holders " the company could be bound
would be through their acQuiescence or
estoppal by allowing the issuing OF the
stock after the proceedings were termi-
mated In this case without objection. q"
Mr.. Thomas quoted decisions OF other
jurisdictions in this connection.
Continuing. he said: The views which
this court has expressed IN the George
town liEJ Light Company's case indicate
caS,-, SnS narrow arrow limits within which The
court said, AS 1 recall now the act OF
Congress. II presents a very narrow
jurisdiction for the justice who is hold
Ing this court to exercise. II simply
empowers him 10 ascertain the cash
value OF the plant for the purpose Of
an increase Of the capital cock OF the
company 10 the extent % that cash
value. providing the present stock IS not
equal to the cash value"
Another Opinion Excerpt.
Again the court said. in this opinion:
The court has nothing 10 do with the
subsequent action OF the gas company
In Issuing new stock. II may not issue
IT, for all the court knows or cares. il
simply ascertaiDs the cash value OF the
plant and presents that fact TO the ga.
company for such action as Il may
deem proper 70 take IN the premises "
This. Mr. Thomas said, was a clear
indication that the opinion OF the court
was not binding upon the gas company
IN any way. 'It Is submitted that such
Z law calls for the exercise Of no judi-
cial function and relates q nothing n
respect 10 the exercise OF judicial
power"
Mr.. Thomas then discusset AT length
the judicial powers OF the court aB del
egated in Article 3. Section !, of the
Constitution. cOntending that the pow
er proposed TO be conferred By Section