The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-10-04
1special to The Farmer.l )


Especial to The Farmer.)
Hartford, Oct. Am affidavit from
Director Dietrich, and explanation
by David D. Day, were the sole reply
made by the Bridgeport Gas Light
Company to the serious facts reflect
ing upon the financial methods Of the
company which appeared in the report
of Mr.. Field, the expert Of the Public
Utilities Commission.
Questioned by Chairman Higgins of
the Commission, Mr. Day, who repre-
sented the company as counsel, admit
ted that he had nothing to offer to ex-
plain why more than a million dol
lars was paid for property sold under
the hammer for $85, 900, except an afh-
davit by Mr.. Dietrich, director in
the compafs, and the explanation by
himself, which was a hearsay state
ment of facts communicated by 9TH
erS.
To inttmatio>s that had been made
by Representatives -McMurray and
Wilson, that this transaction was of
rasca1ly character, Mr.. Day replied
that the commission had no interest
in the moral purpose of the man who
put the deal through.
Mr.. Day said that most of those who
formulated the deal were dead, and
that it was difficult to know what did
happen.
But Rep, Wilson directed attention
to the circumstance that Mr.. Dietrich
had been active. in the deal, that he
was alive and able to explain under
oath and subject to cross-examinatfon
just what happened.
clusion The petitioners closed their
case shortly after two O'Clock. and Mr..
Day asked for time in which to pre-
pare a motion for non-suit.
The commission required that any
evidence Mr. Day desired to offer
fod nd
said that he had none to offer.
Mr.. Higgins inquired: do you wish
to leave unexplained the fact that
your company paid more than a mil
lion, dollars for property that was sold
for $85, ,0O0?''
Mr. Day replied that he would like
to offer the affidavit by Mr.. Dietrich,
and himself state what he had been
told had happened.
Mr.. Dietrich's affidavit consisted sim
ply of a statement that certain per-
sons in the Bridgeport Gas Company
and certain persons with the Citizens
Gas Company, had agreed together to
do what was done.
The petitioners, after aScertai lining
that Mr.. Dietrich became a, director in
the Bridgeport company at about the
time the company paid a million for
the property of the Citizens company,
made no objection to the aamdavit be-
ing received.
When asked Dy Attorney JOnn y"
Cullinan how Mr.. Day explained the
pavment of 81, 300, 900 for property the
superior court had appraised for but
s4Oo, ,oOO Mr.. Day replied: ''It was mere |
Iy conventional appraisal, a mere
ma tier of form
Mr. CulIinan: Wasn't Mr.. Charles |
G. Sanford one of the appraisers, and |
do YOU assert that he is not a careful |
nor prudent man
SET do not said Mr.. Day.
s'And do you claim that Mr.. David
F. Read who was a member of this
board of appraisers was not careful
and prudent man?'' "I do not was
the reply.
ttAnd do you claim that either of
these gentlemen would neglect to do
properly and in the best way he knew
how, what he had taken an oath to
do in good conscience?''
Mr Day admitted that he would
not make such a charge.
Representative McMurray inquired
if Mr. Day claimed that the court was
in the conspiracy to obtain for $85, 900
the property for which these certain
he desired to assert that the court did
not intend that an honest appraisal
should be made.
Mr. Day admitted that the court
ordered and wanted an honest and
lawful appraisal
The Gas company having no evidence
to offer it was agreed that a date
shall be set for arguments, which are
to be oral and by brief.
The morning. session opened with a
motion by Representative Wilson that
in view of the report of the commits
sioners' own expert, it should enter
an immediate order for some reduc-
ton in the price of gas, and order a
@nysica1 valuation to ascertain what !