The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1915-01-22

concentrations in the matter. The
commission fixed the valuation o.
: the gas plant at $4,000. 90. and re
commended a miximum rate OF s1.lC
: per n thousand cubic feet as 6
!, Just and reasonable rate. George "
Scherer one OF the commission also
submitted a minority report recon
mending S1.00 a s the maximu raj;
to be charged, and based his recon
mendation upon the fact that the
!, company's w figures show the op
Grating expenses of 1910 as being
S29.S57.S sc; whereas I'm 1913 the,
amounted to s~30.6I5.51. which led
him to the conclusion that various
items have teen improperly charges
by the Consumers Power company
to operating expense and that a de
cided reduction should be made in
these various amounts claimed e
have been expended for operating
the gas plant"
Upon reading the above recon-
mendations the council appointed c
committee consisting OF Mayor A. G
Meyer, A. @. Lack and G.. II. Brad
ley to consult with the city attorney
in drafting a gas ordnance. and OIL
the 18th d'y CT May. 1914. the coun
Gil passed Malklto's first gas or
dinance, providing for n complete
regulation and supervision of tho
sale OF gas in the city and fixins
the maximum price To be- charged
at 81 with a ten per cent pcnalt,
en- bills not paid by the tenth o.
the month, which ordinance was tc
take effect on the fir.t day q, June
1914.
Besides providing for the price
Of gas the following provisions were
included in the ordinance.
First \ proper pressure of
the pas. and that Il continuous
record Of the pressure be kept
open TO the public.
Second a proper inspection
Of the gas Furnished.
Third. \ testing of all meters.
Fourth. Proper adjustment
settlement OF complaints between
the company and the consumers.
Fifth. \ standard for gas
quality.
Sixth. Proper reports to the
city CT complaints, amount or
gas manufactured. amount of gas
sold, the receipts, the amount OF
actual operating expenses. and
the amount of additional capital
invested.
I Action was Begun.
On the Sth day OF June. 1914. al
action was begun by the Consumers
Power company in the United State.
district court against the city. 4. G.
Meyer. Robert Lamm, Robert Brad
ley. John G.. Gerlich \. G.. Lack
Arthur Schaub, w. l.. ComstOck. r
W. Bates and Eli Klughcrz seekin;
an injunction restraining the city
and It's officers from enforcing In.
ordinance of May IL. and all defend
ants were cited TO appear before
Judge Wilbur Y. Booth at st Pau
On the 18th day of June. which
hearing a afterwards continued I,
the goth day CT July 1914. at whic.
the question of a temporary injunC
ton came up. The following attor
neys appeared for the, company;
Cummins, Stearns and Milkewitch n
Chicago. ILL.,, a. II. Pau Jr.. and c
J. LGurisch CT Mankato. Minnesota
and Davis. Kellogg a. Severance b
ST. Paul, Minnesota: and the city
attorney Arthur Schaub, and S. d
Wilson appeared as attorneys FOL
the city.
\ The complaint of the Consumers
Power company set forth two dis
tinct claims: First. That the rat,
fixed by the ordinance was unrea
sonabie and c~onfiscatory. Second
That the city had no right TO regu
late the rates as they did, and tina
the ordinance was null and void
The City's attorneys took the grount
that the court had no jurisdiction
by reason OF the fact that the plain
tiff claimed that the ordinance o.
which they complained as being con
fiscatory vas ut the same tim,
claimed to be null and void, and
that the question was one for tile
state courts. After an argument last
ing two days. the Judge intimatet
that he would probably dismiss the
action for want Of Jurisdiction. The
attorneys for the company thel
asked permission to file an amended
complaint in which they abandoned
7, their second claim and relied On
! tirely upon the question as tn wlietil
err the rates provided were con
fiscatory or not.
i Temporary Injunction.
;. Later q temporary Injunction wa
granted by the court on condition
that the company file its bond o
!; $4,000 to reimburse it's consumer,
In case the ordinance Is upheld. ant
!. pay into court all sums collected II
exces of the 81 rate to be returnc,
under the direction Of the court a
the expense of the company.
The claims OF the respective par
ties as appears from the complain
!. and answer are as Follows:
The company alleges the value o
their plant to be the sun of 1914,
' OT2.3S.
rl,n .;,,, ,laio,, Tho ,atra a., n.