The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1914-07-10
City Replies To Suit
Asks $l.OO Gas Rate
From fridays patty.

City Attorney Arthur Schaub today
filed in the United States district
court the answer o. the city OF Man
kato to the suit Instituted by the
Consumers Power company against
the city and It's officials. 10 prevent
the enforcement or the dollar gas or.
dinance. This was the final day, set
by the court, for the filing OF the
city's answer. The city attorney has
until July 10 to fiie affldatits IN sup
port, Of the city's allegations.
The defendants specifically deny
that the amount In controversy In
this action exceeds the sum OF So
900
II IS denied that the effect OF the
ordinance In controversy will be TO de
prive the plaintiff Of any OF its prop.
erty Without due process Of law and
in violation OF any provision OF the
constitution OF the United States.
II Is denied that the ordinance will
deny TO the plaintiff the equal protec.
ton of the law. contrary TO the con.
stitution OF the United States.
The defendants also deny that the
effect of the ordinance viii be to Inn
pair the obIipation Of any contracts
between the company and the city
in violation OF the constitution OF
the United States.
The defendants deny that the fair
present value Of the plant and system
used in supplying artificial gas TO the
city OF Mankato and It's Inhabitants
is the sum or $3f4,072.3S, and they
allege that the fair present value Of
this plant and system is not 10 exceed
the sum of $4,000.
Sold Gas In North Mankato. 49,
The defendants allege that besides
selling gas In Mankato, the company
has sold gas In the village Of North
Mankato. during the last four years,
as follows: 1910, s2,600.74: fgt1, So.
0S0.39: 1919. $3,f79.59; 1919. $4,005.
II Is alleged that the village OF
North Mankato Is rapidly increasing
in population and development and
the business OF the company In this
village Is rapidly growing as the
figures show.
The defendants deny that the oper-
ating expenses OF the company we're
what the bin OF complaint set forth,
and allege that In no year did the
operating expenses excede $4,000.
II Is alleged that the company in
keeping an accopht Of It's operating
expenses In the conduct of its bust
ness In manufacturing and selling
artificial gas charged TO the Operat-
ing expenses large sums OF money
which were actually expended by the
plaintiff for the extension, improve
Inent and enlargement OF It's gas
plant. gas holder. mains. tools, ma
chinery appliances and other prop
critics used by the company
IL Is alleged that the company Is
also engaged In the business of pro-
ducing and selling electricity for light
and power. II Is alleged that the
electric business Is conducted in close
connection with the gas business OF
the company. and is conducted IN
the same offise, by the same general
manager. the same Office force and
the same employees. rs
-r Sale Of electricity.
The, defendants maintain that the
gross income Of the company from
the sale OF electricity during the
past four years was as follows: 1910,
So, 02s.se; 1911, s67.349.O1; 1912.
$7s,151.66; 1913 s9s.993.07
IL Is claimed that at least Sc, 900
spent annually by the company In
the development and conduct of It's
electrical business has been wrongfully
charged by the company 10 the &C
count OF operating expenses In the
manufacture and sale OF gas.
The defendants deny that ~ was
shown and made TO appear at the
meetings of the special commission
appointed TO investigate the, gas rate
question that the earnings and ex-
penses were what the company
claimed. II Is denied that Il was
shown that there was an annual de-
probation OF the plant amounting 20
s6,O7s per year. The defendants al.
lege that Il was shown at these meet.
ings that the operating Expenses In
the conduct of the business did not
excel $4,000 a year, and that the
annual depreciation did not exceed
$500 per year The defendants al.
lege that at these meetings Il was
shown that the gas system OF the
company bad paid profits on the In
'Notthoht atnuuhtiHB W tbfItttu 6Hu
a half to fourteen per cent.
II Is denied that the one dollar per
thousand rate as prescribed IN the
ordinance Is unjust or coafscatory,
and II Is alleged that even with that
rate In force the company viii stiil
be earning profit OF more than eight.
per cent on its Investment
An Unreasonable Charge.
II Is alleged that the minimum
charge OF fifty cents per month Cor
each gas customer Is entirely ilnrea-
sonable. unjust and excessive. II Is al.
legged that 10 reduce this minimum
charge TO twenty-five cents Is reason
able and proper, that II Is the mini.
mum charge generally made BY gas
companies throughout this country,
and Is amply sufficient for the puf.
pose OF reimbursing the plaintiff Cor
any items OF expense. incurred by the
plaintiff In the connecting OF its
consumers The defendants allege that
there are few consumers ia the city
whose monthly bill does not exceed
twenty-five cents throughout the year.
and that In the case Of these few
consumers the monthly bun exceeds
this sum at ali times except for two
or three months IN the summer when
the family Is absent on q summer
vacation.
It Is denied that By reducing the
minimum charge from nifty to twenty.