(Name of Company and address.) To (Name and address of consumer). 190 SIR- Receipt of acknowledgment of your complaint involving the question of the accuracy of the meter on your premises. If you desire this company to test the meter for accuracy of registration, please sign the attached application and return it within ten days. tested, application should be made promptly to the Public Service Commission tor If, however, you desire to have your meter officially the First District at its office, 154 Nassau street, New York city. The Commission will make such a test upon the payment of a small fee to cover the actual cost. This fee will be returned to you and collected from the company if the test of the meter discloses that the percentage of inaccuracy equals or exceeds two per cent. to your prejudice. If the meter is found to register slow or less than two per cent. fast this fee will be retained by the Commission. (Name of company.) (Perforation or rule.) To (Name and address of company printed on form). 190 . I hereby request you to exchange and test the gas meter registering gas supplied to my premises at.. (address). (Signature of complainant.) 2. That every gas corporation within the jurisdiction of the Commission shall give to every consumer who requests that his meter be tested, or whose complaint as to the amount of his gas bill is not immediately adjusted to his satisfaction, a copy of said notice, the blanks therein having been properly filled out. 3. That in case a consumer shall have made a complaint, involving the question of the accuracy of his meter, to any gas corporation within the jurisdiction of the Commission, said meter shall not be removed, unless (a) said consumer shall have made application, in the form above provided, to said gas corporation to test his meter; or (b) fifteen days shall have elapsed since said notice shall have been sent to said consumer; or (c) an order from the Commission, directing that said meter be removed for test, shall have been received by said gas corporation. It is further ordered, That this order shall take effect immediately, and shall continue in force for a period of two years, And it is further ordered, That this order is made without prejudice to any other or further order in the premises that the Commission may make. FINAL ORDER No. 758. An order known as Order No. 757 having been duly made by the Commission after a hearing duly had on motion of the Commission, as therein recited, on the question whether improvements in the methods employed by gas corporations within the jurisdiction of the Commission were necessary, which said order directed certain improvements, and also provided that it should be without prejudice to any other or further order in the premises that the Commission might make, and the Commission now being of the opinion that certain other improvements in the methods employed by gas corporations within its jurisdiction are necessary and should be ordered to promote the public interest, preserve the public health and protect those using gas, it is Ordered, That prior to the first day of July, 1909, all gas corporations within the jurisdiction of the Commission remove and submit to the Commission for test, any and all gas meters which shall have been in use for more than seven years; and it is further Ordered, That after the first day of July, 1909, no meter shall be continued in use by any gas corporation within the jurisdiction of the Commission which shall have been in service untested for more than seven years, and no such gas meter shall again be set for use until tested and approved by the Commission; and it is further Ordered, That this order shall take effect immediately and shall continue in force for a period of three years; and it is further Ordered, This this order is made without prejudice to any other or further order In the premises that the Commission may make. January 17, 1908. Whereas, This Commission has general supervision, among other things, of all persons and corporations having authority under law to erect or maintain wires, conduits, ducts or other fixtures in, over or under the streets, highways and public places in the Counties of New York, Kings, Queens and Richmond, for the purpose of furnishing or transmitting electricity for light, heat or power, or maintaining underground conduits or ducts for electrical conductors; and for the purpose of properly performing the duties imposed upon it by law, it is necessary to be informed of the methods employed by such companies in manufacturing and supplying electricity for light, heat or power and in transmitting the same, and the methods employed by them in the transaction of their business, and whether their property is maintained and operated for the security and accommodation of the public and in compliance with the provisions of law and of their franchises and charters. Resolved, That this Commission do, pursuant to the authority contained in section 66 of the Public Service Commissions Law, investigate and examine into the franchises, property and operations of the electric lighting companies doing business in the city of New York, to wit: New York Edison Company, Brush Electric Illuminating Company, Fleischauer Electric Light & Power Company, United Electric Light & Power Company, West Side Electric Company, Long Acre Electric Light & Power Company, Edison Electric Illuminating Company, Kings County Electric Light & Power Company, Amsterdam Light. Heat & Power Company, Flatbush Gas Company, Westchester Lighting Company, Bronx Gas & Electric Company, New York & Queens Electric Light & Power Company, Queens Borough Gas & Electric Company, Richmond Light & Railroad Company, and also the Consolidated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Company and Empire City Subway Company. Limited, and any other company engaged in the business of producing and selling electricity for light, heat or power and having authority to maintain wires, conduits, ducts or other fixtures in, over or under any streets, highways or public places in the city of New York. Further resolved, That in addition to the investigation into the franchises, property and operations of the said companies, inquiry be made into the methods employed by the companies and each of them with respect to any discrimination in rates and whether such discrimination is undue, unreasonable or unjust: whether contracts are required of customers as a condition to service, and if so, their nature and whether legal, just and reasonable; emergency service and auxiliary or supplemental service; regulations governing the introduction of wires upon the premises of customers and others including the cost and charges therefor; regulations governing the discontinuance of service, and also the price charged for electricity and any regulations governing the same, the kind, condition and accuracy of meters used, the condition of the plants, wires, conduits and services and generally the methods employed by the said corporations in generating and supplying electricity and in the transaction of their business; and into every matter and thing necessary or proper to inform the Commission whether the property of said company is maintained and operated for the security and accommodation of the public and in compliance with the provisions of law and of their franchises and charters, together with any other matter or thing relating to said companies or either of them and subject to the control or supervision of the Commission. Further resolved, That such investigation proceed at such time or times as may be fixed by this Commission or the Commissioner presiding, and that notice of the same be sent to the company or companies affected thereby. Hearings were held February 26th, March 5th, 7th, 12th, 17th, 18th, 27th, 28th, 30th, April 1st, 2d, 4th, 9th, 14th, 15th, May 14th, 20th, 27th, June 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 11th, 15th, 17th, 22d, 26th, July 16th, September 3d, 10th, 25th, October 1st, 14th, 19th, 26th, 30th, November 6th, 9th, 16th, 23d, 27th and December 22d. OPINION OF COUNSEL. Public Service Commission for the First District: September 13, 1908. GENTLEMEN - I am in receipt of your communication regarding the complaints made by the Mutual Inspection & Adjustment Company in behalf of Henry Mouquin and of Messrs. Vogler & Vogler, both against the New York Edison Company. The first of these complaints refers to an alleged discrimination in charges, and the second to an arbitrary discontinuance of the electric light connection. It seems to me that both of these complaints are well founded. in the case of Armour Packing Company against the Edison Electric Illuminating Company, 115 App. Div. 51, that electric lighting companies are by law under an It was decided obligation to furnish service without discrimination in price under similar circumstances and conditions. to the defendant, on the allegation that the defendant was at the same time and In that case, the plantiff sued to recover payments made under similar circumstances and conditions furnishing electricity to others at a less rate, and upon demurrer the Court upheld the sufficiency of the complaint. The complaint of Messrs. Vogler & Vogler is also well founded. letter to Mr. Whitney accompanying the complaint, he suggests that a report be made upon the following "fundamental legal points involved: In Mr. Norton's (a) The right of the New York Edison Company, a monopolistic public service corporation.' thirty days notice, if a customer has paid all bills presented in full." to cancel their agreements and disconnect service on (b) The right of the New York Edison Company to increase its rates to customers after contract has been once entered into.' Regarding the first of these propositions. I would report that in my opinion an electrical corporation has no right to cancel and disconnect service arbitrarily, unless the customer is in default of payment of bills duly rendered. Section 65 of Chapter 566 of the Laws of 1890, known as Chapter 40 of the General Laws. requires that gas companies and electric lighting companies furnish service on demand to persons who apply for it in writing, and whose premises are within one hundred feet of a gas main or electric wire. Section 66 provides that the lighting companies may require a reasonable deposit to secure the payment for two months service. willing to make the deposit, and makes a formal demand, it is the duty of the If the applicant for service is lighting company to make the connection and furnish the service; and it necessarily follows that such a company is without right to disconnect the service arbitrarily. It seems to me equally plain that they have not the right to require a yearly contract as a condition for making the service, for such a requirement in many instances would practically nullify the provisions of Section 65 of the law above referred to. I am also of the opinion that the New York Edison Company has no right to increase its rates The law of 1905 established a maximum of 10 cents per kilowatt hour; but even to customers after contract has once been entered into. if the rate established had been an absolute one, contracts theretofore legally made for a less rate would remain binding upon the company. It is elementary that a legislative act cannot impair the obligation of valid contracts already made. In both of these cases the complainants have a complete remedy in the courts. In the case of discrimination, a suit may be brought under the authority of the Armour Packing Company case above cited, to recover back the excess paid. the case of disconnection of service, the complainant may make a formal written demand for the connection, and if the company refuses to furnish service he may, In under the authority of the section above cited recover a penalty of $10.00 and $5.00 for each day during which the refusal continues. I now consider the power of this Commission in dealing with these complaints. The provisions regarding the supervision and control of gas and electrical corporations are different from those regarding the control of railroads and street railroads. The only provision in the Act for orders against gas and electrical corporations is continued in Section 72. It is there provided that "The Commission within lawful limits may, by order, fix the maximum price of gas or electricity to be charged by such corporation or person, or may order such improvement in the manufacture or supply of such gas, in the manufacture, transmission or supply of such electricity, or in the methods employed by such person or corporation as will in its judgment improve the service." It is obvious that these orders are such as refer to the general service and not to the enforcement of the rights of an individual against a corporation in isolated cases. If it is claimed that a general method exists requiring yearly contracts as a condition to service, an investigation might be ordered under section 72, and if such method is found to exist, it could be prohibited by order. be said of discrimination in service, although the concrete case presented seems to me to be an isolated case which could not be made the basis of a general order. The same might If the Commission desires, I will frame an order for such investigation. Yours very truly, (Signed) ABEL E. BLACKMAR, LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS. Cranford Company.- Charges of the Commissioner of Labor against, for alleged violations of the Labor Law. Hearing Order No. 574. Opinion of Commissioner Eustis. In the Matter of the Charges of the Commissioner of Labor against the On motion made and duly seconded, it was HEARING ORDER No. 574. Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to forward a copy of the complaint of the Commissioner of Labor to the Cranford Company notifying it that the Commission requests a written answer to the said complaint to be filed within six days, and further notifying the said Cranford Company that a hearing on the said complaint will be held at the rooms of the Commission on the 19th day of June at 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon, at which it will be required to attend and defend itself against the charges presented; and it is further Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to notify the Commissioner of Labor of the action taken by the Commission, and to request him to be present at the hearing, either in person or by a representative, and to offer such evidence as he may deem necessary. Hearing held June 20th. * [Timbermen placing concrete piles and preparing excavations for concrete piles and supports are not technically shorers.] The A hearing was held on June 20, 1908, at 10 A. M., on the complaint of the Commissioner of Labor that the Cranford Company, the contractor for Section 9-0-3 of the Brooklyn Loop lines, failed to comply with the Labor Law in that it employed men to do shoring work at less than the prevailing rate of wages. The contractor duly answered, and on the hearing was represented by counsel, and the Commissioner of Labor appeared by Mr. William W. Walling, First Deputy Commissioner. It appears that the complaint arose from the work of the contractor in underpinning the buildings along Centre street. The Department of Labor contended that the work was that of shoring buildings, while the contractor contended that shoring property consisted of placing timber struts against the buildings and needling them as a method of support while the buildings were off their foundations, and claims that this work was not done in this manner. contractor seems to have adopted a novel method of support along this work in that the foundations of the buildings are not disturbed, excavations being made under the buildings, and concrete supports extended thus reinforcing the foundation. For this work timbermen and laborers were used, but the affidavits and reports presented by the Commissioner of Labor establish the fact that where a shorer was employed by the contractor he was in each instance paid the prevailing rate of wages of $3.50 for a day's work of eight hours. The question therefore resolved itself into one whether timbermen, placing concrete piles and preparing excavations for concrete piles and supports, were technically shorers and therefore entitled to $3.50 a day. In my opinion the evidence clearly showed that these men were not doing what is generally and usually known as shorer's work, but were doing the work which is usually done by timbermen. This conclusion is also, I think, the conclusion of the Deputy Commissioner of Labor who, after the hearing, agreed that the complaint had not been substantiated, and I think it is See footnote, page 9. also the conclusion of the City Comptroller's office, which also had a representative present. I therefore report that, in my opinion, no violation of the Labor Law, as charged, exists, and advise that a resolution be adopted dismissing the complaint. Thereupon the following dismissal order was issued: ORDER No. 602. June 26, 1908. Resolved, That the complaint of the Commissioner of Labor against the Cranford Company, the contractor for Section 9-0-3 of the Brooklyn Loop Lines, be and the same hereby is dismissed upon the merits, and that the Secretary be directed to advise the Commissioner of Labor that after a hearing of all parties concerned, the Commission is of the opinion that no violation of the Labor Law, as charged exists, and that the Secretary advise the Comptroller of the city of New York of the Commission's decision in the premises. VIOLATIONS OF ORDERS AND PENALTY SUITS. Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company.- Wrecking train at Brooklyn terminal of Brooklyn Bridge. Hearing Order No. 213. Opinion of Commissioner Bassett. Extension Order No. 280. Opinion of Commissioner Bassett. In the Matter of the Hearing on the motion of the Commission as to the regulations, practices, equipment and service of the BROOKLYN UNION ELEVATED RAILROAD COMPANY, in the respects hereinafter mentioned. ORDER FOR HEARING It is hereby ordered. That a hearing be had on the 3d day of February, 1908, at 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon. or at any time or times to which the same may be adjourned, at the rooms of the Commission at No. 154 Nassau street, borough of Manhattan, city and State of New York, to inquire whether the regulations, practices, equipment, appliances or service of the said company on its line on and across and near the Brooklyn Bridge, in the city of New York, in respect to the transportation of persons. freight or property within the State, are unjust, unreasonable, unsafe. improper or inadequate, and if it be so found then to determine whether changes in said regulations, practices, equipment, appliances or service, in the particulars following. at the place or places herein mentioned would be just, reasonable, safe, adequate and proner, and whether such changes shall be put in force, observed and used on the line of said company, and also to inquire and determine whether repairs. improvements, changes or additions to or in the tracks, switches, terminals. terminal facilities or other property or device used by said company in the particulars following ought reasonably to be made in order to promote the security or convenience of the public or employees, or in order to secure adequate facilities for the transportation of passengers, freight or property namely: Whether said company should be directed to keep and maintain at its terminal yard at or near the Brooklyn terminal of the Brooklyn Bridge a wrecking car or wrecking cars or wrecking train or wrecking trains, to be used by said company in clearing its track upon and near said bridge and opening the same up for transportation in cases of derailments or other accidents on or near said bridge, to the end that the delay in the transportation of passengers, freight or property caused by such accidents shall be as slight as possible, and that the public safety and convenience shall be promoted. And if such changes, improvements and additions, or any of them, be such as ought to be made as aforesaid, then to determine what period would be a reasonable time within which the same ought to be directed to be executed. |