The Washington times., 1913-01-04
HUME DECLARES
STRIFE WILL KEEP
PRICE OF GAS UP
Stakeholder Begins Suit to
Remedy Conditions Be-
tween Companies.

The price of gas, particularly west
and north of Rock Creek, was increased
AND will continue at a high figure un-
less the strife between the Washington
Gas Light Company and the George
town Gas Light Company ends, accord
ing to Thomas L. Hume. who began
action in the District Supreme Court to-
day to remedy conditions
1t is the opinion of Mr.. Hume that
with the two companies cooperating 1t
will be possible to reduce the price OF
gas
Justice Barnard in Equity Court No.
.. cited the Washington Gas Light Com
pany to show cause next Friday why
$3.50 shares of stock Of the Georgetown
Gas Light Company standing in its
name on the books Of the latter COM
pany should not be distributed pro rata
among the stockholders of the defen-
dant corporation
The defendant is also asked to show
cause why a receiver should not be ap-
pointed to take charge of the stock in
question pending the litigation.
Officers Defendants.
Mr.. Hume, as a stockholder of the
washington Gas Light Company, in
stituted the action through Attorneys
Bradenburg & Brandenburg. The offi-
GERS and directors of the company,
Joseph Letter, Howard Beeside, Ord
Preston, James n. Green, Daniel
Fraser. Guy ". whiting. John d. Nc
Ilhenny, jr., william B. Orme, and
Lawrence Townsend are named as de-
fendants.
1t Is charged in the complaint that
Notwithstanding the fact that the
business Of the defendant corporation
10 restricted to the manufacture and
sale OF gas, the corporation, without
the authority Of stockholders, 'unlaw-
fully directed certain Of its surplus
profits or net earnings by purchasing
$3.50 shares out of the total 5000 shares
Of the stock Of the Georgetown Gas
Light Company"
The claim Is made that by virtue of
such ownership and ever since 1t acquir
ed the stock, and UP to and until June
5, 1sf2. the defendant corporation has
exercised control over the management
Of the Georgetown Gas Light Company.
Worth Half Million.
Mr.. Hume asserts in his petition that
the par value of the stock is SIS ESQ.
while the market value, according TO
the belief of the plaintiff. is in excess
Of ssee. coo.
This situation is a corporate para
dox,'' said Mr. Hume today. "The
Washington Gas Company holds, for its
stockholders, a ma ajority Of the stock OF
the Georgetown Gas Company, and yet
ii does not control or direct that COM
pany."
If this holding is a legal one 1t en-
titles the Washington Company to con-
troll the Georgetown Company, yet 1t
does not control it: 1t entities it to d.
rect that company's policy, yet it does
not direct Il: II entities il to take pos
session of that company, yet IL does not
possess IL: II entities IL to appoint d.
rectors. a president, and other officers,
and to administer the coInparIy's af-
fairs, yet Ii does neither.
In July last the Georgetown Com
pany declared a dividend upon its capi-
tai stock, and il paid that dividend to
the minority stockholders Of record, but
held back and omitted to pay the WASH
ington Company that proportion Of the
dividend which accrued to the mapority
shares held by the Washington Com
pSny. The officers of the Washington
Company, as trustees ior the stockhold-
ers. have accepted this situation appar-
entity. and have made no effort to col
lect the dividend due them. In other
words the Washington Company has its
stockholders money tied up In this in
Vestment, over which il exercises no
control and from which it collects no
return Now Why should we as stock
holders Of the Washington Company,
Permit this situation to exist and re-
nsin quiet about il?
As carly as july last, / frequently
interviewed certain officers of the
Washington company, with the view
OF amicably adjusting this matter 20
the satisfaction of all. and ] was en-
couraged in the belief that something
would be done toward that end. After
continued interviews. covering consid-
cradle time. i became convinced that
the washington dicertors were obdurate
and determined upon a do-nothing' pol
icy and that further effort and en-
treaty were useless.
So. IL being apparent. that the two
companies as constituted could not get
along together, and recognizing the
folly Of the continuance of the Wash
tngton company's position. caused,
in November last. letter TO be d.
rected to the Washington company, by
my attorneys. requesting the distribu-
ION OF the Georgetown stock. held b.
the Washington company 10 the stock
holders Of the Washington company
10 whom II properly belongs, in order
That these stockholders could derive tn,
neneht therefrom. This request was
refused.
Attitude Has Changed.
Since that time the attitude of the
two companies toward each other has
nto materially cDanSeo. and on ac
count of the Washington company's
disposition OF Indifference and aIiena-
don toward the Georgetown company,
the latter has since found IL necessary
10 increase the price of gas TO all con-
sumers In the District of Columbia
located west and north Of Rock Crek.
whereas, under an amica bic working
agreement between the two compaDies
gas could have been furnished with
profit at the old price. II is obviously
unjust, that within the same juris-
diction. q man on one street should
pay one price for gas and a man on
another street pay another price for
gas, and this could have been avoided
had the two companies properly CO.
operated.
THE Washington Company and the
Georgetown Company. whose Interests
should be mutual, and who together
control the entire and sole gas privl-
leges of the District of Columbia
should through conjunctive and AMIGA
Die operation supply gas TO the people
OF the District OF Columbia at a Iu,y
and uniform rate and with efficient
service. and at the same time be ever
conscious of the rights Of and their
duty toward their stockholders II they
cannot do these things acting together.
and II seems as IL they cannot then /
say separate them, and give the peopIe
the benefit Of the competition. and The
Washintfon Companys Stockholders
the benefit of their money I'm the form