New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-05-30
BURR ANSW Frs MASTEN
SAYS DELAY VAS NEEDED
Company Holds Assessment OF
Franchises Proves Them Palld.

Following the rebuke by Special Master Masten
on Tuesday, when Deputy Attorney General DE
Ford and Assistant Corporation Counsel Burr
asked for an extension of time in which to prepare
their objections the masters report in the gas
suits Mr. Burr made a report TO Corporation Coun-
sci Ellison yesterday saying adjournments were
asked except those absolutely necessary. the case
proceeded rapidly, he said that couhSel hao
practically time TO read and correct the pro-
ceedngs of day before they went on to the
next
THE most involved and Intricate questions OF
fact anc law" said Mr. Burr, were presented,
The Consolidated company began its action Wheh
it was satisfied of its readiness to present every
point 10 its own satisfaction. The city demanded
an examination of the plants 70 ascertain their
value after the proceedings started before the
master, and they asked for an examination or the
company's books to ascertain the actual cost OF
manufacturing gas and of its sale.
Both these things were denied us, and we had
to ask the court for leave to make such eXamina-
ton and when that leave granted, for time
to make it. That the occasion for asking adj
journments"
The statement which he made public regarding
the masters report he gave out at the request of
the Corporation Counsel and at the urgent request
of the press It was not garbed in the slightest
respect, he said
THE consumers in Manhattan must pay return
on the company's investment of S2,0Dco In Asto-
ria said Mr.. Burr. That land cost several hun
a little while when ii will he worth millions. and
under the masters ruling the consumer may be
required pay-a return upon that Increased Vaiue
The only object of the amendments or correc-
tions we NAV have offer is to show the court on
appeal that we called the attention of the master
to any mistakes in figures facts he may have
made in his report: otherwise we could not ask for
relief in this regard in the Appellate court
Il now say again that the report of the master
in the particulars have specified does not present
rIe. ing n he
CITY and that something should be and VIII be
done to the burden this report Will place upon
his back"
The Consolidated Gas Company in its complaint
in the franchise suits says the fact that the
special franchises of the company have been as
sessed by The board IS conclusive proof that
the company possesses such franchises. because II
IL were occupying the streets without due author
ity It would have franchise which could ne mace
the subject of assessment.
The franchise to lay and maintain mains Is de-
rived from the Legislature the complaint says
and not from the municipal authorities. All that a
gas company need do after It has been Incorporated
is to obtain the consent of the local authorities
No particular form of consent is prescribed the
company holds. and the consent is inferred from
acquiescence by the local authorities Where right
OF this kind is obtained. X II will be deemed
perpetual unless 1t is shown that II has been ex-
pressly limited by the consent or grant conferrlng IL
on the present motion. the company asserts. IL Is
unnecessary to consider the value OF franchises be
cause II appears by the opinion of the commission
that in fixing the S0-cent rate the gas commission
allowed nothing whatever for them. Even very
slight value would invalidate the OF the COM
mission.
The validity of the special franchise tax law,
the complaint says. was vigorously assailed shortly
after its passage, largely upon the ground that IL
deprived the local municipal authorities of the
power to regulate their affairs. inasmuCh
state board appointed 20 assess this property,
although the assessment was made FOR local taxa
ton. The appointment OF the state board up
held by the Court Of Appeals. on the ground that
the property OF such peculiar character and
difficult to value that only board Of large
perience gained from familiarity with conditions
existing throughout the state could possibly reach
correct conclusion.
The defendants THE state in this easel contend
that because the company held before the state
board that its franchises were not so valuable.
therefore the finding of the board may be disre-
garded. But the very fact that the finding
made after a contest gives II additional weight,
says the company.