The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-08-25

was legal sparring match between Estates Attorney Judson and Judge Beers in which a few choice scraps of irony were exchanged.
 Judge Beers said that he came re- presenting the United Illuminating Co. and his mission was to ascertain the course Of conduct of the committee. He supposed that if it was a case where the city was proceeding against the company that the committee would proceed in the usual way by produc- ing it's witnesses and that the company would reply to whatever was present ed in the way of evidence against it. He supposed that the city had cer- tain specified power, but not the pow Ter to ask the defendant to come in and show that he is not guilty. He declared that the company was ready to present whatever information the committee wanted to know with po- hteness. But if the hearings took the form of an investigation then the committee would be compelled to take the evidence as presented by the company.
 said the judge. "is whether the city is going into the question of the con- tract between it and the city, the question of arc lights or the question of incandeScent lights which are not a part of the contract"
 Chairman Day replied that he be- lieved> the resolution of the common council creating the committee. which
 
 opening of the hearing was very spe- cific, as it applied solely to arc lights as mentioned in the 1899 contract be- tween the city and the company. Judge Beers said he raised the ques- tion because he doubted the right of the committee to enquire into a con- | tract that might have been made be- | tween the company and John Jones said the committee had no -'< purpose pose other than to ask the company to place in it's hands a. statement of the relative cost of the production of cleo the present price of $79.75 went into effect) and the present time. Will such a statement be accepted pr subjected to attack?'' asked Judge
 Chairman Day said he did not know about that.
 Judge Beers replied that he would make a statement but it should not | be used against the company in the future, or used as evidence in future | proceedings. "The committee could not enter into such an agreement. Its do- tngs are open to the public,'' replied Chairman Day. Judge Beers then ask | ed that the stenographer record his attitude in the matter
 Attorney Judson remarked he was going to say that he was surprised at Judge Beers preparatory remarks, but he had changed his mind as he was well acquainted with Judge Beers | Suave and smooth way of presenting things. MT. Judson said he assumed | that the committee was acting under | the authorization of the common coun- | cil, that MT. Paul and others were | before the Committee in answer to summons. and that it is an investiga- sume that any interested person may ] appear and ask any proper question 1 of any other interested person.
 The chairman said that there would | be no objection to such course.
 Judge Beers said that it was all very well for someone to appear and say they appeared for interested par ties but he wanted to know who they parties of straw. He added, "I appear for the United Illuminating Co. I tell who I appear for and think it very reasonable to ask who MT. Judson ap- pears for"
 1 MT. Judson replied that Samuel s. | Sanford who pays taxes on $640, ,0o0, l for the Thomas P. Taylor Co.,, o.,sthat pays taxes on S294, ,642, The Rowland | $50 900 and Handy & Harmon who pay taxes on $43,70O
 | Judge Beers said he wished to call attention that only one of the con- cerns or persons mentioned were customers of the United illuminating Go.
 Alderman Bullard wanted to know if the judge meant to imply that tax payers do not have right to be heard relative to the lighting contract | ''O' mo-" replied Judge Beers, 1T just wanted to distinguish them from GUS | toners who purchase electricity direct from our company. They or any other | taxpayer has a right to be heard here.''
 The statement of President English was next read by Judge Beers It | showed that on February 1, 1906 there were $50 electric arc lights in the city and that February 1, 1909 there were 615. It stated that the cost of pro- ducing light per lamp per annum was | $75.60 in 1906 against s77.S6 per lamp in 1909. The cost of poles, fixtures, l lamps. globes, cartoons, and mainten- ance and trimming were all figured in as part of production Alderman l Builard said they did not belong there | and poles. fixtures and lannps were not