Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-11-01
LAW NOT VIOLATED,
SAYS GAS COMPANY
Answers Suit Filed by D. c. to
Bring About Its
Dissolution.
HOLDINGS IN GEORGETOWN
BOUGHT 20 YEARS AGO
Declares Congress Has Had Knowl-
edge of and Acquiesced in
Stock Ownership.

Denying that it has in any manner vio-
lated the act OF March 4, 1913, under
which the District of Columbia seeks it's
corporate dissolution. the Washington Gas
Light Company today made answer to the
suit filed against it by the municipal
authorities. The ownership of the $500
shares OF the capital stock of the George
town Gas Light Company. charged as a
violation of law, is admitted by the COM
pany, which asserts that its ownership
of the stock has been known for years
to Congress and the latter has ''by legis-
lative enactment acquiesced in and i'm
pliedly ratified and approved (such
ownership, with like effect as If expressly
authorized The company also admits
owning $4,000 Of the certificates Of in
debtedness of the Georgetown concern.
Purchased Twenty Years Ago.
The stock was purchased more than
twenty years ago, the court is advised,
when not one Of the present directors or
general officers Of the company was con-
nected with the corpordation, excepting
the present secretary. who was then
holding a clerical position in the COM
pany's employ. 1t is admitted the pur-
chase was made out of the earnings OF
the company at an expenditure OF $172.-
O04. The present value is not stated in
the answer. but it said to be consider
ably In excess of the amount paid.
When the company acquired this stock.
1t claims, the right of one corporation to
acquire the stock of another was main
tanned by legal authorities OF the highest
standing. and was not denied by the
courts Of this jurisdiction until about 1895.
Since this latter date no additional shares
have been purchased, the court is ad-
vised.
TO impose penalty now for the owner
ship of this stock, it is contended in the
answer, would be both inequitable and a
violation of the rights of this defendant,
and its stockholders and creditors, and a
taking of their property without cOmpen-
sation or due process of law.
Tried to Dispose of Stock.
For considerable time prior to the en-
actment of the act of March 4, 1918, it
is asserted, the Washington company
having been advised that it's right to
hold the stock OF tle Georgetown COM
pany was denied, endeavored to provide
for the disposition Of the stock in con-
troversy. The company says it met
with opposition. The Georgetown COM
pany DECLARED, it as stated, that 1t would
not recognize the said shares as the
property OF this defendant, would not
allow the same to be voted, would pay
no dividends thereon and would not
comply with any requests for the trans
fer thereof by persons who might pur
chase the same from this defendant, and
the right of the said defendant to assume
the said position was referred to this
court for determination in equity cause
No. 31573. still pending therein, before
the said enactment Of March 1, 1913,
which said attitude Of the said company
was accompanied by oVertureS by and on
behalf of certain of its officers for the
purchase by this defendant of the re-
manning shares of their company, or of
their own holdings therein. at price in
excess Of it's market value
Sought Voting Of Shares.
Despite the attitude taken by the
Georgetown company at that time, it is
asserted the Georgetown company sub
sequently sought the voting by this de-
fendant Of its said shares upon pro-
posed bond issue by the said company.
and received. counted and recorded its
vote upon that question.
The court is advised that the Washing
ton company is entirely willing that the
shares In question may be sold and dis
posed of under the direction of the
court. 1t requests. however. that the
proceeds Of such sale. together with ac-
crued and unpaid dividends, be applied
to the payment of the eomDany's obiiga-
tionS in such order and in such man
ner as the court may determine.
Emphatic denial is made in the answer
of the charge that the Washington COM
pany has made use of its holding of
the stock to dominate the affairs of the
Georgetown company and to suppress
competition. The answer sets forth
that the company lis unable to admit,
but on the contrary denies and calls
the bill that it has in the past directed
and controlled the affairs of the George
town Gas Light Company, or caused to be
elected as its president or to be placed
upon its board of directors persons who,
by reason of non-residence in George
town. were Ineligible to that Office and
whose election was contrary to the
charter of the said Georgetown Gas Light
Company.
Abolition Of Georgetown.
''As it is further advised, believes and
therefore AYERS. the charter Of George
town was abolished by the act of Con-
gress approved February q. 1871, en-
titled an act to provide government
for the District of Columbia. and that
by the act of February II. 1855. even the
name Georgetown was abolished and the
city of Washington extended so as to
embrace the territory which had been
known by that designation while the
charter OF Georgetown was In existence.
Ac tc oh nv fha lloi, tn,