The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1920-11-11
CLEAR EDISON FIRM
OF PROFITS CHARGE
Court Dismisses Indictments
Alleging Profiteering in
Sugar and Coal.

Judge Julius NJ, Mayer. after hearing
arguments in the United States District
Court, sustained yesterday the denurrers
lnterposed against indictments charging
the Brooklyn Edison Company Inc, and
the Adelphia Coal Company. Inc. with
conspiracy to violate the Lever act by
profiteering in the sale and boarding OF
coal. The indictments charging those
offences were dismissed.
Decision was reserved upon the con-
current motions to dismiss also indict-
ments charging conspiracy and fraud In
the use of priority orders issued by the
Interstate Commerce Commission. That
charge involved not only the Brooklyn
Edison Company, but also Walter f.
Wells. its vice-presdent, and Harry r.
Wood, who until recently was its operat-
ing engineer, II involved also as a CO.
defendant the 3. j. Lynch Coal Com
pany, Inc.
In sustaining the denurrers in so far
as they applied to the Brooklyn Edison
Company, Judge Mayer said:
Passing on the constitutional ques-
tons raised. this indictment cannot stand
unless defendant is one OF those pro-
hibited under section OF the so-called
Lever act from doing the acts there de-
nounced. The defendant Is not q whole
saler. retailer or other dealer In coal,
nor Is II a manufacturer within the
meaning of section 6. Defendant is q
public utility corporation engaged in the
manufacture, production and sale OF
electric light and power. II is a matter
of common knowledge that the business
Of such corporations is subject to Iegu-
lstion by public service commissions or
similar bodies. Such corporations are
not in the same situation as uncontrolled
private corporations or individuals. They
owe duty 10 the community to furnish
light and power adequately and without
cessation, so far as practicable.
ITO perform this duty they need coal
nr6 exigencies and contingencies mus.
b, foreseen. l am OF the opinion that
Congress never intended that this dis
erection should be controlled or intec
fcred with by this act, particularly In
view of the many regulatory statute
national and State, which relate either
70 public utility corporations or car
riers. Interstate and intrastate.
Further. the phrase public utility
corporations is well known both collo-
crially and technically. If Congress
had intended TO apply section to pub
lie utility corporations il could have -
stated In simple language
but tnere ls an even broader reason
manufacturer does not refer TO corpo
Tatlons like defendant. The furnishing
o. light and power was vital TO tn, coun-
try during the war. No one could fore
SEC what might happen or be needed.
il was the duty of n light and power
IthlIc utility corporation 70 prevent 50
far az possible the shutting down or
suspension of the service OF light and
power. Congress undoubtedly realized
that Il would interfere with and poss
h.y impair the usefulness OF such cor
porat ons as defendant II they were lei.
a. the mercy OF section instead o;
subject 10 the regulation Of the appro
p. late regulatory bodies.
II am, therefore. OF opinion that sec
tor clearly does not apply 10 this de-
PENDANT. There are other reasons whicL
~ pport the view that the indictmen
fails TO set forth allegations sufficient to
Charge CT me. but these Il is unnec
essary 70 discuss. Demurrer sustaine 1
and indictment dismissed