Transcript of Record — Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma
Supreme Court brief1922
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.
SUPREME COURT OF THE
OCTOBER TERM. a 192]
No. MRS'7
v8.
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ET AL.
IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA.
(27,634)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
OCTOBER TERM, 1920.
No. 312.
OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN
ERROR,
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ET AL.
IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA
INDEX.
Original. Print.
PN (OWS Cun gaps ees eb au SAS NOR Na Sols SRR WS NA SRR OAS a 1
Seek: REE GEECHRG GPROOR. skids cas ace cd sie inn vd coehs es 1 1
ens See WORN OE RR Ao vaca sb a NAARGNAR GARR RSs ba 3 2
OE CORON accu k Sos Ka RNR ON RERES RE ERE OO OES 1 3
nn UNO WEEE OF GRRE. ok ok abasic bus cease betes shee Se 9 6
Ce MO. ods Wun aaa Cok sae COC as Oke ke ok ean kes 11 7
EIR TROIS cs aroha x hk ORK RKKRS 000s Sean 6 Becks 13 8
eee: WO SURMMINONE. os abs chance kewedswna anna nak cacewkec 15 )
NS ee err eee ee er ey Sr er Rae 16 10
Pe GU QEWOR hak cand cvaavs Man cenk eas sh na causamsaca W7 11
Comepieint of Chan. Bi. RU OF Ob... cscs vevesacsacs 23 13
Separate answer of Oklahoma Natural Gas Company.... 30 17
Separate answer of Oklahoma Natural Gas Company..... 32 18
Separate answer of Oklahoma Gas & Flectric Company.. 39 22
Complainant's reply to separate answer of Oklahoma Gas
ee COIN oo oo Sk CS oaccnesn eawak sue wctaweces 44 24
EET COUR ok. 6 056k vc sina seen owns unica es 47 25
Jupp & DETWEILER (INc.), PRINTERS, Wasnuincton, D. C.. JUNE 21. 1920.
eee So en ey
ll INDEX.
Original.
Complaint of T. F. Donnell........... cncek she GRAS BAD 53
Answer of Oklahoma Gas & E lectric Company............ 5s
Complaint of Chas. B. Selby et ale... cece cee eee eee eee me
Separate answer of Oklahoma Natural Gas Company.... 7
Separate answer of Oklahoma Gas & Eleetrie Company. . nn
Proceedings had before the Commission, January 2. 1918. . RQ
Testimony of Henry M. Gray... 2... cece cece cen e eens st
Ci, ee EMIIIOTORS cas sc snc b wees scasass 91
Chas. H. Ruth........ Hck kpARROE Dae 4
WP a RNR Css SABA SO eee 88 cae 8 Mm
. a Se oS rece re 101
ee Sk SRA eee eee Te ee 131
Continuation of hearing held on January 2. 191S.......... 138
Testimony OFC. Te. BORK cw ec cere sw eceereessvens 153
Br: Sos ES TRATE ci sicie a ccncanaesen 159
a PE A kk Sak oR Od ON Te BS iin
CN Be. ERE, ohn chic bab cea saan an en 171
Fey ee Ee CAORIOONEY . gs osha ec uch ees Wh
Dr. Edwin De Barr Creealled)......... Wh
oie a rice ea re 176
Ewhibit Gas Consumers’ Hand-book................2. 1S1
Letter from Public Utilities Commission of Ohio... .. ISS
latter from Buren of Mines... oc... ccc cua ISS
Findings of fact. opinion, and orders.......0.......6. 195
Moditving Order NO. 1S... cece cca casencces 242
BUORtION TOP BION. wos aca neeee sce ewes ces 249
Supersedeas order.......... Ke VATA SA RAA DAK TRONS Ke we
IO PIE ao ks oi AS tee ota ee aes ah ae eas 254
Acknowledgment of service of case made............-. 257
Motion to correct and supplement record... .. 0... c ee ee eee 250
ee Oe CUOMIOIIERT POCOUT coos sock kane edie se eee eee 262
PIIRORERL “PRCOTE: 5 oc eck cc ene eecen ecm e ewes 2638
DO ee, ER IMRIOWD ca kos chins vw aac hws Seu ee ee panes 265
Correspondence and Motices.. oc ccc sce cc cece ewe eee ces iss)
A OO SES Si Rn arse ee eee a 2ts
Order striking case from assignment...... PEC Ce Tee 2s1
RUM CRU cc cence ek ch teak hig ea ena ba Nath a JR2
ey Ci NNN a vec kv hs RASS MN SN AS EN ERAS OO 283
Judgment ; ; ORANGE RGEC RISK CaS wee AE ON ws4
eT eS Cee ee LARA Wick RCRA Sees & oN
Order granting time te file petition for rehearing. .... 0.6... ee 2a.
ETRIONT SOE POROA TIN os ce es cc ek eek een oe ae eae Rs eee ees uM
ey IONG IS TOMCRLINE soc conc eet ew keene hace ence seanees LOS
O¥o WORD cg. Pe a? Neer ert ee tke rere eee mat)
A
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. 1
a Return to Writ.
In obedience to the commands of the within writ, T herewith trans-
mit to the Supreme Court of the United States a duly certified tran-
script of the complete record and proceedings in the within entitled
case, With all things concerning the same.
In witness whereof. | hereunto subseribe my name, and affix the
seal of said Supreme Court of Oklahoma, in the City of Oklahoma
City. Oklahoma, this the 1%th day of April, A. D. 1920.
[Seal Supreme Court, State of Oklahoma. |
WM. M. FRANKLIN,
Clerk Supreme Court of Oklahoma,
$y - —~, Deputy.
l [Stamped:| Filed in Supreme Court of Oklahoma Apr. 14,
1920. William M. Franklin, Clerk.
In the Sapreme Court of the United States.
No. 9854.
OKLAHOMA Narurar Gas Company, a Corporation, Appellant,
vs.
THe Stark oF OKLAHOMA, CHARLES H. Rutru, Tl. F. Trip, T. F.
Donnell, Charles Bo Selby, and George M. Callihan, Ap-
lees.
Citation.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, sx:
To the State of Oklahoma and S. P. Freeling, Attorney General, its
attorney of record, and to Charles TH. Rath, HW. FL Tripp, T. PF.
Donnell, Charles B. Selby, and George M. Callihan, Greeting:
You, and each of vou, are hereby cited and admonished to ap-
vear in the Supreme Court of the United States at Washington in the
District of Columbia within thirty days from the date hereof pur-
suant to a writ of error filed in the office of the Clerk of the Su-
preme Court of the State of Oklahoma, wherein Oklahoma Natural
Gas Company, a corporation, is appellant, and you and each of vou
are appellees, to show cause, if any there be, why the judgment ren-
dered against the said appellant as in the said writ of error men-
tioned should not be corrected, and why speedy justice should not
be done to the parties in that behalf.
cree erat ret Ont 5 RRL LG TLE
2 OKLA. NAT. GAS Cu. Vs. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
Witness the Honorable Edward Douglass White, Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of the United States this the 10” day of April,
in the Year of our Lord 120.
EDWARD DOUGLASS WHITE,
of the Nupreime Court of the United States,
By PHOS. TH. OWEN,
Chit Justice of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Chief dusties
Attest:
[Seal Supreme Court, State of Oklahoma. |
WM. M. FRANKLIN,
Clerk of the Nupre wee Court of the
Ntate of Oklahoma,
By POS. HILLMAN. Deputy
Copy oof the within citation is acknowledged by each of us
to have beem reeenved om this the loth day of April, L820,
and each of the said appellees in the foregoing citation now and
hereby eliters its anid this Lede ral Up pearance i the sitid cause in the
Supreme Court of the United States
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.
By SPO FREELING,
Atty. General,
By B. 6. FULIOX.
Asst, Atty. Genl.
CHAS. Bb. SELBY.
GhORGH Mo CALLITLAN,
T. F. DONNELL.
CHARLES H. RUTH.
m. ©. Tmire.
3 ‘Stamped: | Filed in Supreme Court of Oklahoma Apr. 10.
| cn ] e |
1920. Wilham M. Franklin, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the United States.
In the Supretie Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. 9854.
OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAs Company, a Corporation, Appellant,
vo:
Tue State or OKLAHOMA, Coartes H. Rerun, HW. F. Tripr. T. F
Donnell, Charles Bo Selby. and George TL. Callihan, Ap-
pellees.
iL, tition for Worst | Error.
Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, appellant in the above entitled
and numbered cause. feeling itself aggrieved by the decision and judg:
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. 3
ment of this court rendered in said cause on January 20, 1920, and
by this court's denial on Mareh 30, 1920, of this appellant's petition
for rehearing therein, comes now by Ames, Chambers, Lowe &
Richardson, its attorneys of record herein, and petitions the court
for an order allowing this appellant to prosecute a writ of error to
the Honorable Supreme Court of the United States under and ae-
cording to the Constitution and laws of the United States and the
rules of said court in that behalf made and provided, and for an
order that all further proceedings herein be suspended and stayed
until the determination of said writ of error by the Supreme Court
of the United States. and vour petitioner will ever pray.
AMEs, CHAMBERS, LOWE &
RICHARDSON,
Attorneys for Appellant.
4 [Stamped:] Filed in Supreme Court of Oklahoma Apr. 10,
1920. William M. Franklin, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the United States.
No. YS54.
OKLAHOMA NaturAL Gas Company, a Corporation, Appellant,
Vs.
THE Sravre oF OKLAHOMA, CHARLES H. Rurn, H. F. Tripp, T. FP.
Donnell, Charles B. Selby, and George H. Callihan, Ap-
pellees.
Assignments of Error,
Now comes Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, a corporation, ap-
pellant in the cause above entitled, and savs that in the record and
proceedings in said cause there is manifest error in this, to-wit:
iL.
The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma erred in affirming
the order of the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma
appealed from,
»
The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma erred in holding
that the order of the Corporation Commission of the State of Okla-
homa appealed from docs not deprive appellant of its property with-
out due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States.
ee ee ee ee ee ee ee cons ————————————————
4 OKLA. NAT. GAS Co. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
2
oo.
The order of the Corporation Cornission of the State of Okla-
bron appoattod from denied te this appellant due process of
” law and operated to deprive this appellant of: its property
Without que process of Taw in Violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution aft the United States, in this, to-wit:
(a) The pleading: tiled before the Corporation Commission of
Oklahoma did not ask for a disesunt or rebate upon the bills of
consumers, and the process served upon the appellant did not dis.
close that any discounts or re hates Nyon -uid billy were contemplated
by the Corporation Commission: and the appellant had no notice
or knowledge of the eomtenyplited order requiring the discounting
or rebating of the bills of those patrons for low pressure until the
order requiring the discounting or rebating of said bills was actually
made, and the appellant therefore had neo opportunity to defend
against said order. or to produce either evidence or argument agallist
its propriety. pustice or legality,
Oh) The evidence <bowed and the Corporation Commission found
that the appellant had not been negligent in the performance of its
public duty. and the Corporation Comanission did not find that any
person Was charged for gas which he did not receive and use, but
the Coniunuission’= order required a discount pon the bills for gas
furnished during the two previens months. not because the appel-
leunit = puitrotys chick tot vise abel comstime the aniount of gas for which
they were charged. but merely beeause the appellant could not fur-
nish the tit all the Giuis thie v wanted or necded. Said order Wis there-
fore arbitrary and tnreasonable, and was rade without evidence
legally justifving thie siilnie, siti there in operated to deprive the itp
pellant of its property without duc process of law,
(e) The Comanission’s order purports to treat appellant's duty of
furnishing an adequate supply of natural gas as an absolute duty,
and to penalize it fer failure te do se, although the supply avail-
able itt the fhe "ds hice become Hidequate and although it
5 was humanty impossible to furnish am adequate supply,
(d) The order of the Conatiiissten requiring the rebating or dis-
counting of bills ineurred im the past was net an order regulating
rates, but Was an order depriving the appellant of indebtednesses
whieh had acerned to it under an existing established rate, and was
made in a proceeding i which there were neither proper parties,
proper pleadings, proper notice. and without evidence legally war-
ranting the same.
ie) The order of the Corporation Comunission declared a four-
ounce pressure to be normal pressure, three-ounee pressure as three-
fourths normal, two ounee pressure as one-half normal and one-ounce
pressure as one-fourth normal: and the Cotmission ordered that
during the period of time when the pressure was four ounces the
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE oF ORLA. ET AL. 0
full bill should be paid. that for that period of time when the pres.
sure Was three ounces only three-fourths of the bill should be parted,
that for that period of time when the pressure was twe ones sony
one-half the bill should be par. that for that portion of the time when
the pressure Was one omnes. only onefourth of the bill sliould Te
paid. and that for all gas used under one ounce. ne part whatsoever
of the ball should he paid: notwithstanding the evidence showed
that the difference between the quantity and heating value of natural
gas furnished at four ounces pressure and that furnished at three
ounees pressure is less than one-half of one per cent, and the differ-
enee between the quantity and heating value of gas furnished at
four ounees pressure and that furnished at two ounces pressure is
less than one per cent. and the difference between the quantity and
heating value of gas furnished at four ounces pressure and
a af one-ounee presstire is less than one and one-half per cent,
The difference in said pressure therefore does pot justify the
difference in the amount of the rebate oer diseaunt awarded. and is
purely arbitrary and unreasonable,
(f) The Corporation Commission did) net mqiire Mmte. ascertam
or consider the particular facets with reference to the individual con-
sumers to whom the rebates or discounts wer awarded, buat each
and every patron residing in the distriet in whieh the Jew pressure
existed daring any given period Was awarded the discount pon his
bill for that month, even though. during the period of low pressure
he was using coal, oil or some other fuel. and even though the whole
amount of gas which he consumed was consumed during the period
of normal pressure,
(q) The order of the Commission relieved appellant's patrons
from the duty of paving any sum whatsoever fer the eas which
they used at less than one-ounee Pressure. and thereby operated to
take appellant’s property without any compensation whatsoever and
to deprive appellant of its pronerty without dis process of baw.
(h) If the order of the Comission was legistative im character.
then the effort of the Commission te give It a petroaetive efleet, and
to apply it to bills ineurred during the past and before the nitking
of the order would have the effect of divesting appellant of property
and property rights which had vested in it, and would operate to
deprive appellant of its property without due process of law in viola-
tion of the Fourteenth Amendment te the Constitution of the
United States,
§ And the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma erred in
refusing to reverse the said order of said Corporation Com-
mission for each of the reasons hereinabove set forth.
Wherefore, the appellant prays that th Judgment of the Supreme
Court of the State of Oklahoma aflirmine the said order of the Cor-
poration Commission of Oklahoma shall be reversed,
AMES, CHAMBERS. LOWE & RICHARDSON,
Attorneys for Appellant.
oO
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
9 Filed in Supreme Court of Oklahoma Apr. 10, 1920. Wil-
liam M. Franklin, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. 9854.
OKLAHOMA NATURAL Gas Company, a Corporation, Appellant.
vs.
THe Strate or OKLAHOMA, Cuartes H. Rerun, WH. F. Trier, T. F.
Donnell, Charles B. Selby, and George HH. Callihan, Appel-
lees.
Order Allowing Writ of Error.
This cause coming on to be heard on the 10th day of April, 1920,
upon petition of the appellant for a writ of error herein to the Su-
preme Court of the United States, and it appearing that the appel-
lant has filed its assignments of error, it| is hereby ordered upon
motion of D. AL Richardson, one of the attorneys for appellant,
that a writ of error be and it is hereby allowed to have reviewed in
the Supreme Court of the United States the judgment heretofore
rendered in said eause by this court on January 20, 1920. and the
denial by this court on Mareh 30, 1920. of appellant's petition: for
rehearing herein.
And it further appearing that said appellant has prayed for an
order of supersedeas in said cause, it is further ordered that said ap-
pellant be required to exeente its bond in said cause in the sum of
$35,000.00, and that upon the filing of said bond and it- approval
by the Chief Justice of this court. it is ordered that all further pro-
ceedings be suspended and stayed until the determination of the
said writ of error by the Supreme Court of the United States.
10 Ordered, adjudged and decreed this 10th day of April,
1920,
THOS. H. OWEN,
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Attest:
WM. M. FRANKLIN,
Clerk of the Supreme Court
of the State of Oklahoma,
By P.S. HILLMAN,
Deputy. [| SEAL. |
1] [Stamped:] Filed in Supreme Court of Oklahoma Apr.
16,1920. William M. Franklin, Clerk,
ee . 7 Ses ee 7 SiMe Tae re RAS 0s SAR SL ENO ELLE ILO OIL ELLA DLS OBOE tral a ge
~1
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
In the Supreme Court of the United States.
OKLAHOMA NatuRAL Gas Compaxy. a Corporation, Appellant,
VE,
THE State or OxkLAnoMA, Cuarbes I. Rerun, H. F. Tripp.
T. F. Donnell, Charles B. Selby, and George H. Callihan, Ap-
pellees.
Woret of Error.
The President of the United States to the Honorable Justices of the
Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. Greeting:
Because, in the record and proceedings, as also in the rendition of
the judgment, of a plea which is in said court before you or some of
you, between the parties above named. viz: Oklahonia Natural Gas
Company, a corporation, appellant, and The State of Oklahoma,
Charles H. Ruth, H. F. Tripp. T. F. Donnell. Charles B. Selby. and
George H. Callihan, appellees, vour court being the highest court of
sald state having jurisdiction to render Judgment in the ease, there
Was drawn in question the validity of a statute of. and an order of.
and an authority exercised under, said state. on the ground of their
being repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. and the
decision was in favor of their validity, and there being manifest
error in said decision, greatly to the damage of the Oklahoma Natural
Gas Company, a corporation, appellant: and. we heing willing that
if there is error, it should be duly corrected. we do therefore eom-
mand vou, if judgment be therein given, that under the seal of
your court you send the records and proceedings had in said eanse
to the Supreme Court of the United States together with this
12 writ. so that vou have the same in Washineton in the Distriet
of Columbia on the 10th day of May. 1920. in the Supreme
Court to be then and there held, that the record may be inspeeted
by said court and justice done.
Witness the Honorable Edward Douglass White. Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court. the 10 day of April, 1920.
[Seal of the United States Distriet Court. Western District
of Oklahoma. }
ARNOLD C. DOLDE.
Clerk of the District Court of the Unit, d States
for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
Allowed :
THOS. H. OWEN,
Ch lef Justice of the Supreme Court
of the Ntate of Oklahoma.
[Seal Supreme Court, State of Oklahoma. ]
SD oer a ree
re) OKLA. NAT. GAs CO. Vs, THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
Attest:
WM. M. FRANKLIN,
Clerk Supreme Court, Okla.,
By REUEL HASKELL. Jr.,
Deputy.
13 Filed in Supreme Court of Oklahoma Apr. 10.) 1920.
William M. Franklin, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. YS.
OKLAHOMA NATURAL GaAs Company, a Corporation, Appellant,
Vs.
THE State or OKLAHOMA, Cuartes H. Reru, H. FF. Tripp,
T. FL Donnell, Charles Bo Selby. and George M. Callihan. Ap-
pellees.
Nu pe rsedeas Bond.
Know all men by these presents:
That the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company. a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Oklahoma. obligor, and the United
States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, a corporation organized under
the laws of Marvland and duly qualified to transaet business in the
State of Oklahoma. as surety. are held and tirmly bound unto the
above named appellees and unto the State of Oklahoma for the use
end benefit of whom it may concern in the sam of Thirty-five Theu-
sand ($35,000.00) Dollars, for the payment of which well and truls
to be made we and each of us do hereby jemtly and severally bind
ourselves, Our successors and assigns.
Dated this 12th dav of April, 120.
The condition of the foregoing obligation is such that
Whereas. on the 23 day of February, 11S. the Corporation Com-
mission of the State of Oklahoma made and entered its order No.
Seo) requiring the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company and the
Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, defendants, to make certain
14 discounts and rebates specttiod in sad order upon the bills of
its consumers of gas in the City of Oklahoma City during the
month of December, 1917. and the month of January, T9TS. and,
Whereas, the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company. principal obligor,
did appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma from. said
order: and
Whereas. said Supreme Court of Oklahoma. on January 20, 1920,
rendered a decision and judgment in said cause affirming said order
of said Corporation Commission, and on Mareh 30. 1920, denied a
petition for rehearing therein; and
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. Vs. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. 9)
Whereas, the said obligor, Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, has
apphed for a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States
in said cause, and pending the prosecution of said writ of error the
sald order of the Corporation Commission and the judgment of the
Supreme Court of Oklahoma aftirming the same hac been suspended
and superseded :
Now, therefore, if the said principal obligor shall prosecute its
writ of error with due diligence and to good effect. and shall pay all
damages and costs, rebates and discounts. if it fails to make its plea
good, then this obligation shall he void. otherwise the same shall be
and remain in full force and effect.
OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS COM-
PANY,
By RoC. SHARP,
Vice President,
UNITED STATES FIDELITY &
GUARANTY CO,,
By ED M. SEMANS,
Its Duly Authorized Agent
and Attorney in Fact. [ SEAL. |
The above bond is hereby approved on this the Hth day of April,
1920.
THOS. TH. OWEN,
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma,
15 Filed in Supreme Court of Oklahoma Apr. 14, 1920.
William M. Franklin. Clerk.
In the Supre me Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. QS54.
OKLAHOMA Naturar Gas Compayy. a Corporation, Appellant.
VE.
THE STATE OF OKLATIONA et al. Appellees.
Pracipe for Trans: ripe,
To the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma :
The appellant, Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, having praved
and having obtained a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the
United States in the above entitled eanse. In reby requests that you
prepare a full and complete transeript of the record and of all pro-
ceedings in said cause in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, for trans-
mission to and filing in the Supreme Court of the United States: and
the appellant, considering that the entire record in this eause is
necessary to a full and complete understanding thereof by the Su-
preme Court of the United States, requests that no portion of the
~T
goer
apanesveresms.
RET Se TARE Ee ARE Be LR EAN BRN ——
10 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET Al
record in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma be eliminated, but that all
of the same be incorporated in said transeript,
AMES. CHAMBERS, LOWE & RICH.
ARDSON,
Attorne US for A ppe Mant,
1h Before the Corporation Comauission of Oklahoma,
OS.
Cause No Stss.
Cuas. PH Rar et al.. Complamants.
vs.
OKLAHOMA Gas & Eneerkte Cowpasy and ORpAnO Ww NATURAL
Gas Company. Defendants,
‘suse Na, 3192.
TB. Doxsnin et al. Comp lamant.,
Vs,
OKLAHOMA Gives & Eneetrie Coarpany. Defendant.
te Na, RG
Cras. B. Sperry. County Attorneys. et al. Complamants,
Vs
OKrtaHows Gas & Ereeter Cowrasy and Oe ravme way Narerar
(axes Coupany Determeant-.
€ ase Mas I, :
Chas. H. Ruth et al. \tternevs for Coniplamants.
C. Bo Ames et alo and Pant Reis. Attorney. for Defendants
Corporation Commission of Oklahema. Piled Apas os,
Il. Hyde, See'y.
Filed in Supreme Court of Oklihoma Apr 3. DOTS. William M.
Franklin, Clerk.
11s. J.
one on: <i pe “ Semel <3 oe ae ee NAS ene ee ea es ee ad es: |
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. ll
ii Filed in Supreme Court of Oklahoma Apr. 3. 1918. Wil-
ham M. Franklin, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. 9854.
OKLAHOMA NATURAL Gas Company. 4 Corporation, Plaintiff in
Error,
VR.
Thr State or OKLAHOMA. Charnes BR. SELBY, County Attorney
. : e . «2
and Others. Defendants in Error.
Petition in Error.
Comes now the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company. a corporation,
plaintiff in error in the above entitled cause and respectfully shows
to the court that on February 238. 1918. Order No. 1379 Was made
by the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma in these
cases then pending before the Commission. being Number SSS,
Number 3092 and Number 3197,
That there is hereunto attached under the seal of the Corporation
Commussion all the facts upon whieh the action appealed from: was
based, tovether with the evidemce Introduced hefore and considered
by the Commission, duly certified by the Neting Chairman of the
Commission as required by law.
The said plaintiff in error respectfully shows unto the Court that
there was errer committed by the Corporation Commission in the
rendition of said order in the fellowing particulars. to-wit:
1. Said order, finding and judgment of the Commission is not
supported by the evidence in said eanse.
2. Said order, finding and judement of the Commission is con-
trary to law.
8. Said order, finding and judgment of the Commission takes
from the plaintiff in errer a commodity, to-wit, natural gas, without
compensation and therefore deprives it of its property without due
process of law, and in violation of the Fourteenth Amend-
IS-20) ment of the Constitution of the United States. and in vio-
lation of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma,
4. Said order, finding and judgment of the Commission is one
which the Commission has no jurisdiction to make under the Con-
stitution and laws of the state.
Wherefore plaintiff in error prays that the said. orders. findings
and judgment of the Commission shall be reversed.
AMES, CHAMBERS, LOWE & RICHARDSON.
Attorneys for Plaintiff in Error,
l2 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. Vs. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
21 Filed in Supreme Court of Oklahoma Apr. 3) Pats. Wal
ham M. Franklin, Clerk.
Before the Corpotation of Oblahoma,
No. 3188.
Cuarves TH. Reavia et al, Complamants.
Vs.
OKLAHOMA Gas & Eveerrie Company and OKLAHOMA NATOURG
Gis Company, Defendants.
No. 3192.
T. Fo Doxsxenn et al. Complainants.
Vs,
OKLAHOMA Gas & Ereetere Company, Defendant.
No, 319%.
CnHakirs Bo Seiry, County \tterney. et al. Complanmants,
'¢_3
OxranomMa Gas & Erectric Company and OKLAHOMA NATURAL
Gas Company, Defendants,
The undersigned W. OD. Humphrey. Acting Chairman of the Cor
poration Commission of the State of Oklahoma does hereby certit
under the seal of the Comunuissren that the Oklahoma Natural Ga:
Company. defendant inthe above entitled catses. tas taken an ap
peal from orders No. T3879 and T3800 as made by the Commission
therein, and does hereby further certify to the Supreme Court that
the papers herennte attached contain all the facts upon whareh th
action of the Commission appealed frome was based. together wit]
the evidence introduced before and considered lw the Conmmarssion
and that said Order No. 1879 hereinatter set forth contams a written
statement of the reasons upon which the order of the Corunissten
eppealed from was based.
Gaven under the hand and the -calot the Commnre-ten on this od
day of April, 1915.
[Seal of Corporation Comanissien, Oklahoma. |
WD TU MPHREY, |
letting Chairman.
Attest.
J. H. HYDE,
Sec'y.
-
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. 13
2) Be it remembered, that on the 10th day of December, 1917,
Charles TH]. Ruth. and others, commenced an action before
the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma against the
Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, and others, by the tiling of a com-
plant whieh is in words and figures as follows. to-wit:
Be: STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Ohlahoma County, se:
| In the Comimissioncr’s Court, Before the Corporation Commission of
| the State of Oklahoma.
No. 3188.
Cnavrces H. Rera and H. F. Tripp et al.. Relators.
v
w
OKLAHOMA Gas & ELectrie Company (a Corporation) & THE
NATURAL Gas Company (a Corporation), Respondents,
|
Complaint,
Come now the relators, Charles TH. Ruth and Tl. F. Tripp. and
om behalf of themselves individually and all other residents of the
City of Oklahoma City. State of Oklahoma individually and col-
leetively asa community. being users and consumers of natural
gas Within the said city and affected Ly the action of the respondents
leremafter complained of, and for their cause of action against the
respondents allege and state.
1. ‘That the relators are bona tide residents of the City of Okla-
homa City and are users and consumers of natural gas and are de-
pendent upon it for domestic and business purposes, the natural gas
furnished by the respondents, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company
and the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company and are not indebted to
vither of the said companies for any commodity furnished by the
sid companies or either of them.
2. That the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, is now and
Was at all times hereinafter mentioned a public service corpo-
+ ration duly organized. created and existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the State of Oklahoma. and as such cor-
joration is now amd was at all times hereinafter mentioned the
owner of a certain franchise granted by the municipality of Okla-
toma City, Oklahoma, for the purpose of supplying and selling said
wunicipality and the inhabitants thereof. with natural gas for light,
leat and power purposes, and as such public service corporation ex-
teises the right of eminent domain, for the purpose of transporting
nid supplying by means of pipe lines Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
iid the inhabitants thereof with all the natural eas used by said city
aid the inhabitants thereof for light. heat and power purposes, and
Prey Ty
|
14 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
as such public service corporation, owns and possesses ao virtual
monopoly in the business of supplying Oklahoma City and the in-
habitants thereof with matural gas for the purposes aforesaid, and by
reason thereof, the relators and the residents of said cuy Hust con
tract with said corporation for all natural gas used by them in
the conduet of ther individual business, enterprises and institu.
tions and for the purpose of domestic use in ther homes, and: that
by reason of such facts itis the duty of said corporation engaged
in the business aforesaid to furnish the City of Oklahoma City and
the inhabitants thereof with all the natural gas reasonably neces.
sary and adequate to the needs of the public in said City of Okla-
homa City, Oklahoma. for the purposes aforesaid, and the adequate
ur Inadequate supply so furnished or neglected to be furnished by
the said respondents affects the community of Oklahoma City at
lurge.
3. That the Natural Gas Company is now and was at all times
hereinafter mentioned a corporation duly organized, created and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Oklahoma
for the purpose of trabisporting hy tneauns of pipe lines in the State
of Oklahoma natural gas and for such purposes possesses the right
of eminent domain and is chgaged am the transportation of
20 natural gas by way or tieans of pipe lines from: Cushing,
Oklahoma, to Oklahoma Citv, Oklahoma, and is under con-
tract, the exact terms of which are unknown to your complainants,
to deliver said natural gas into the pipe lines owned, operated and
controlled by the Oklahoma Gas and Eleetric Company at and in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the purpose of supplying said City
and inhabitants thereof for heat, light and power purposes aforesaid.
4. The relators for themselves and all other users and consumers
of natural gas within the City of Oklahoma City are advised and be-
lieve and so allege and state that the said respondents and each of
them have construed and have intermittently maintamed but one
main pipe line into the said City for the purpose of supplying
natural gas to the relators and other residents of Oklahoma City ; and
at divers and sundry times, the exact date thereof being to the re-
lators unknown, the said pipe line has become broken and out of re-
pair, and a reasonably adequate supply of natural gas has been de-
nied to these relators and all other persons of Oklahoma City, and
has been completely shut off and ceased to flow through the pipe of
the respondent corporations.
5. That at divers and sundry times within the last three vears
the quantity or volume of gas supplied by the respondents has been
wholly inadequate to supply the needs of the relators and the other
residents of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the exact times, days and
dates of such inadequate supply are to the relators unknown, except
— hereinafter set forth.
6. That on the 7th. Sth. 9th and 10th days of December, 1917,
the said respondents. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, has
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. 15
wholly failed, refused and neglected to supply the relators with a
reasobable and adequate supply of gas for heat. light and power
purposes, and the community of Oklahoma City at large Was affected
thereby, and such failure of the respondent to furnish a reasonably
adequate supply of natural gas te the relators and community at
large, ocenstotied sid caused erent ~ulfering, hardships and
Yb distress and aetual loss te these relators and the citizens of
Oklahoma City at large.
1. These relators are ad\ ised anid “oO believe and =v allege and state
that the said respond lils. Oklaboria Cras and Electric Company nor
neither of them have or maintained any reserved ~upply to meet ordi-
nary conditions arising in the winter months or to supply and gas in
the event of a break in the wain line, “Upplying the said community ;
and the relators are further advised and believe and so allege and
state that itis wholly practical to maintain tanks and reservoirs for
storage of natural vas dn such quantities us will reasonably supply
the needs of the citizens of Oklaloun uy.
Premises considered, vour relators therefore pray that the Okla-
homa Natural Gas Company be required to produce its books, papers,
lnlls and accounts before this Conunission and to discover to this
Commission the amount or volume of natural gas furnished daily
ance the Ist day of January, 1916, to date to the Oklahoma Gas and
Electric Company for the purpose of supplying these relators and the
community of Oklahoma City at large. and to discover to this Com-
mission the legal connection if anv eXisting between the said re-
spondents, and the contracts made and entered into between them
with reference to the supply of natural gas to be supplied to the resi-
dents of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
2nd. That the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company be required
to produce before this Commission its books. papers, bills and ac-
counts showing the daily consumption of gas by the residents of
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. and to discover to this Commission the
volume or quantity of natural gas adequate to supply the reasonable
needs of the relators and the community of Oklahoma City at large
during the months of December, January, February and March of
each year.
3rd. That the said Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company be re-
quired to produce before this Conmuission its books, papers,
and reports, and to discover to this Commission the per
pound or ounce pressure necessary to be maintained in their
mains, laterals or supply pipes. to furnis ha reasonably adequate
volume of gas to the relators and all other users or consumers of
natural gas within the community of Oklahoma City. Oklahoma, at
large. ,
27
4th. That this Commission order and direct. the said respondent,
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company to make immediate provision
for the raising to and maintaining at the necessary and proper pres-
#
;
¥
&
=
&
\
a a i ee a ee ee ed ee Si
18 OKLA. NAT. GAS CoO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
sure. sufficient natural gas to supply the adequate needs of the re.
laters and the community of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, at large.
oth. “That this Comunission order and direct the respondent, Okla
homa Gas & Electric Company to tomediately ereet, construct o
build suitable tanks. reservoirs or receptacles of sufficient: size and
dimensions to hold and contain a reserve supply of natural gas to
adequately supply the needs of the relators and the community of
Oklahoma City at large. and that this court further order and direct
the said respondent, Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company to maintain
said tanks. reservoirs or receptacles full with natural gas to their
capacity as a reserve supply against the contingency of a break in
the main pipe line of the said company and against the usual re.
quirements made necessary by the weather conditions during the
winter months of each vear, and your respondents will ever pray,
ete.
(Syd) CHARLES H. RUTH,
H. F. TRIPP,
Relators.
Charles Ho Ruth and Harry Bo Pripp each being duly sworn xe
cording to law. upon oath, each for himself saws, that he has
28 read the within and foregoing complaint by them tiled and
that the matters therein stated are true.
CHARLES H. RUTH.
-m. F. Tere.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of December,
1Y1%.
[ SEAL. ] BEATRICE GIVAN,
Notary Public.
Endorsed: No. 3188.) In the Conimissioners’ Court before the Cor-
poration Comission of the State of Oklahoma. Chas. H. Ruth and
H. F. Tripp. et al. Relators. v=. Oklahoma Gas & Electrie Co. (a
corporation) and The Natural Gas Cotmipany (a corporation |
Respondents. Coniplaint, Filed December 10, 1917,
24 Thereafter, on January 2. 1918. The Oklahoma Natural
Gas Company tiled its separate answer in said cause. which
said answer is in words and figures following, to wit.
Be - oS ok ST . ee be
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. 17
3U Before the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma.
No. 3188.
CHartes H, Reru et al.
Vs.
OKLAHOMA Gas & Eneerkie Company and OkLAnoMA Narura
(ras COMPANY,
Separate Answer of Oklahoma Natural Gas Company.
Comes now the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, one of the de-
fendants in said cause. and for its separate answer to the colmplaint
heretofore filed herem, auliswering SuVs:
I. That it admits that the complainants are residents of Oklahoma
City and users of natural gas, but it denies that they are dependent
upon natural gas for dotuestic and business purposes, but says that
they have the same opportunity and the same right as citizens of any
city Which is not supplied with natural gas, to procure fuel of other
kinds, and that their reason for desiring to use natural vas is because
itis a cheaper and more convenient fuel,
2. It admits that its co-defendant, Oklahoma Gas & Electrie Com-
pany, exercises a franchise within the City of Oklahoma City for the
purpose of distributing natural gas. and that it owes a duty to said
citizens to use reasonable diligence to discharge its functions as a
public service corporation, and in this regard it says that it is engaged
in the business of supplying natural gas to its co-defendant for distri-
bution in Oklahoma City, and it avers that it has used every reason-
able means within its power to supply the needs and requirements of
said city, and in this connection it refers to the allegations of its
answer filed in the complaint against it and its co-defendant before
this Commission by the County Attorney of Oklahoma County,
Oklahoma and prays that said allegations may be made a part of
this answer.
31 3. It admits that it is engaged in the business of transport-
ing gas by means of pipe lines to Oklahoma City, and that
it is under contract with the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company,
and it avers that a copy of this contract is on file with this Commis.
s10n.
4. With reference to the pipe line construction by this defendant,
this defendant respectfully refers to its answer filed to the complaint
brought by the County Attorney of Oklahoma County. Oklahoma,
and asks that said answer may be referred to as a part of this answer.
A copy of said answer is hereunto attached, marked exhibit me
and referred to as a part of this answer.
2—312
oe acid
re Ut eek, eee eae ea te ie a
18 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO, VS. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL,
j, Por its answer to the fifth, sixth and seventh paragraphs of said
complaint, itorefers to dts answer hereunto attached, marked exhibit
“A and made a partof this answer
6. Further answering this defendant says that its reports to this
Commission are on files that its contract with the Oklahoma Gas &
Kleetrie Company is on tile with this Comission: and that it has
at all times made such reports te this Conimiission as required ty fav,
or requested by the Conmmiussion, and thai it has done everything
Within its power and tore than is required by the law at all tines
to supply the tnhabitants of Oklahoma City with gas,
Now, therefore, having fully answered, this defendant prays that
the relief sought by the complamants be denied,
(Syd.) AMES, CHAMBERS, LOWE &
RICHARDSON,
Afforneus for Defendant Oklahome
Natural Chas Compan ",
Filed Jan. 2, 191s,
a2 Before the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma,
No,
In re OKLAHOMA Gas & Enecrrte Company and OKLAHOMA Nut
URAL Gas COMPANY,
N+ parate Answer of Oklahoma Natural Gas Company,
Comes now the Oklahonia Natural Gas Company, and for its sep
arate answer to the complaint heretofore tiled am this cause hy the
County Attorney of Okluhoma County, Oklahoma, answering, says
This defendant is engaged in the business of producing, purchas:
ing and transporting natural gas te be sold te the indiabitants of
Oklahoma City, and a large number of other towns and cities in the
State of Oklahoma. Tn the prosecution of its business it conveys
natural gas to the eity Limits of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, where it
delivers the same to its codefendant, the Oklahoma Gas & Electric
Company, whieh in turn distributes the same to the inhabitants ot
Oklahoma City. ‘That it has been engaged in this business fer a
period of approximately ten years, and during that time it has used
every means Within its power to deliver at all times an adequate sup-
ply of gas for domestic consumption: as well as for the use of power
plants, not only in Oklahoma City, hut inomany other towns in the
State of Oklahoma. That its co-defendant, The Oklahoma Gas «
Electrie Company is dependent upon this defendant for the supply
of natural gas which it distributes in the city of Oklahoma City, and
this defendant at all times has and is now furnishing an adequate
supply of gas in Oklahoma City except in rare occasions, Et adits
that during a few days in the month of December, 1917, its supply
of gas has been insufficient to meet all requirements, but in this con
lat
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO, Vs. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL, ee
heollon it respectfully shows to the Comunission that it has
33 fu shed all the gas whieh it has heen able to produce or
pur oases and notoonly all the gas whieh it has been able to
produce or purchase in the vieinity of its pipe tines but that it has
tuken extraord nary precautions to supply ah adequate supply of gas
for its customers during the present winter, That im se doing it has
extended its main trank tine to what is known as the Morrison Field
by building ata great expense to ita twelve neh line frome a point
on its original svstem: near Wellston, Oklahoma, in a northerly di-
rectlon to the Morrison ield, andl that im so doing it dias expended
approximately the sum oof SS00,0000 ‘That the Morrison field is
about 53 miles distant from: its former pipe line svstem. and this de-
fendant Was not bound in law to expend said sum of money, or ex-
tend its line to said distant field, but has done so as a business propo-
sition and in order to supply the continually imereasing demand of
its customers for gas. That during the dates complained of, to-wit,
from December Sth to December T. 1917. both imelseve, this de-
fendant has supplied for use at Oklahoma City: approximately 20,-
HO0.000 cubie feet per day, or approximately the equivalent in equal
units of 1.000 tons of coal per day during said period,
This defendant further savs that on December TS, 19h7. it com-
pleted its pipe line connection with the Morrison field, and that since
said time it has an additional supply of gas from: said) Morrison field
of approximately 20,000,000 cubie feet per day, which is the carry-
Ing capacity of its pipe line connection with said) Morrison. field,
This defendant believes that at present it has an adequate supply of
vas for all domestic consturption in the City of Oklahoma City, and
In supplying its constamers it is now and has at all times been giv-
Ing preference to domestic CONSUMption,
This defendant further savs that in the nature of things
a the quantity of gas which it can supply is Limited by the
amount of gas it can purchase, and by the carrving capacity
of its pipe line system,
This defendant further savs that its original pipe line connecting
Oklihoma City with the gas fields) was a twelve inch line from which
was supplied not only Oklahoma City, but Edmond, Guthrie, Shaw-
nee, Chandler, and various other towns along its system. That when
said line was constructed it was of ample capacity to supply the peo-
ple then living in the towns supplied by it, but that the City of Okla-
homa City, sinee its original pipe line was constructed has increased
in population from approximately 30,000 to approximately 100,000 ;
that the City of Tulsa which is also supplied by this defendant, dur-
ing the same period has increased in population from approximately
12,000 to approximately 65,000: that the City of Muskogee, which
is likewise supplied by this defendant, has during said’ time in-
creased in population fren approximately 20,000) to 35,000, and
that the population in other towns and cities supplied by this defend-
ant has likewise inereased, That at the same time the population
served by this defendant has been increasing so rapidly the supply
of gas available in Oklahoma has been shifting from: place to place.
That the original tields from: which this defendant procured a supply
20 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO, VS. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL.
of gas have been almost exhausted, and that very little of the gas now
served to the people along its Lines is coming from: said fields, That
new oll fields have come in from time to time whieh this defendant
has reached by the building of additional Pipe lines at preat ENPCT se,
wna that satd tields have lasted from: two to three vears. That this
defendant extended its pipe dine into the Cushing field during the
vear TY) 2 at aceost of approximately 8325,.000, buat that the gas fron
the Cushing field hats been lara ly depleted.
That the supply of gas from the various tlelds which it has
35 reached lias been exhausted largely by waste and not by use,
and that the defendant during the past eight vears has been
dommg everything within its power to bring about the conservation of
gas Within the State of Oklahoma, and at all times has co-operated
with the public otlicials of the state in seeking to conserve the supply
of gas for domestic consumption. "Phatam undertaking to keep pace
with the consumers served by this defendant, im addition to extend.
Ing ats lines to mew fields, has also duit am additional twelve ineh
line from Oklahoma City aloneside its ortemal twelve neh line for
a dlistance of thirty qathes te Wellston, thereby doubling its curry.
Ing capacity for that distanee. “That while the price of fuel during
suid period bras thie price cit fhae | onl advan hie from forts cells pret
barrel to SLS5 per barrel, the price of qiatural gas las not been
changed in Oklahoma City
Further ahswering the speeitic charges of sitid complaint this de-
fendant says:
1. Tt denies that for a long period of time this defendant tailed
to furnish an adequate supply of gas to meet the demands of Ok-
lahoma City in ordinary severe, winter weather, but on the contrary
avers that during the tem vears whieh it has been supplying: gas
at Oklahoma City there have been very few days when the supply
Was not adequate for all dotiestie constumaption,
20 Tt denies that it has continually represented to the imbabitants
of Oklahoma City that there would be an adequate supply of gas,
but has atall thes merely engaged to furnish said gas as it was able
to procure and had advised all consumers to have a supply of coal or
other fuelon hand in cases of eTHergeney,
Oo Tt denies that at has been neghoent tn the construction of its
pipe litte sVsteli, and denies that its lines are hud so near the ground
us to be In puirtoushy affected during cold weather. It likewise denies
that breaks im its pipe lines dave been a frequent occurrence, but
on the contrary alleges that during the ten vears it has sup-
36 plied Oklahoma City with gas there have been only two
breaks, one of which was caused by a tlood of unusual
magnitude washing out a part of its pipe Line. and the other caused
by an unavoidable explosion,
4. It demies that it has utterly tailed to provide more than one
pipe, and avers that it has doubled back its line from Oklahoma
City to Wellston, and has built new lines into varioud gas tields
for the purpose of procuring an adequate supply of gas.
OKLA. NAT. GAS CU. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL. Yai
It admits that it has hot provided storage facilitics for the storage
of gas other than its pipe line system, and in this connection it avers
that the cost of building storage facilities is so ereat as to be pro-
hibited- and that im the proseention of the natural gas business
storaee facilities are hot ustual or customary, and in fact are prac.
tically unknown. Tt likewise denies that the stockholders arc prac
tically the same as the stockholders of the Oklahoma Gas & Eleetrie
Company, buat on the Contrary avers thisat it~ stockholders are entirely
separate and distinet from the Oklabonia (tas «& Klectrie Company,
and that there is moe comunen OWhership or Common tianagemernt
of the two defendants,
% Tt admits that the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company. its eo.
defendant, has a franchise for the distribution of gas in Oklahoma
City. but it denies that the population of Oklahoma City has a right
to depend entirely for fuel upon these defendants. and avers that
the reason the people wish to use gas is because it is a eheaper and
mere converment fuel than any other. and not teeause other fuel
is not available, but on the contrary it alleges that before it eon.
structed its pipe line svstem. the people of Okubo City were
entirely without natural gas. and that they have now just the same
opportunity of procuring other fuel as they would have if there were
no natural gas to be supplied,
AY G. Tt demies the averment of the sixth paragraph of sard
complaint,
+ Tt denies the averments of the seventh paragraph of said eon.
plaint,
S. Tt denies that it or its co-defendant has at any time withheld
any available gas from the City of Oklahoma City and refers te
the allegations of this answer hereinhefore set forth showing the
efforts it has made at all times to furnish an adequate supply of
gas,
Wherefore, having fully answered said complaint, this defendant
prevs that it be discharged,
Attorne ys for Thy fe ndant.
Exhibit “A.”
38 Thereafter. on January 9. 191S. the Oklahoma Gas &
Electric Company filed their separate answer in Canse No.
MISS. which said answer is in werds and figures following to-wit
arate RIE BPS REE LLORES ETA: STIS “ae o> am ay
22 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. Vs, THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
39 Before the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma.
Cause No. 3188.
Cuarcies H. Rurn et al.
V8.
OkraAnomMA Gas & Evectric Co. and OKLAnoMA NATURAL Gas Co.
Ne parate Answer of Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company.
: : f
The Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company. one of the defendants
in said cause, herewith files its separate answer to the above com
plaint, and answering, says:
First, that it admits that Charles H. Rath and PL HE Tripp. whe
signed the complaint, are residents of Oklahoma City and are users
and consumers of natural gas. but it denies that the said) eonmplain-
ants are dependent upon natural gas for domestic and business pur-
poses. but says that they have the same opportunity. and the same
right as eitizens of any city which is not supplied with natural gas,
to procure fuel of other kinds, and that their reason for desiring to
use Matural gas is because it is a cheaper and more convenient fuel,
(1) Defendant demies that all of the names made a part of this
petition as complainants, by amendment. are residents of Oklahoma
Citv, or users of natural gas.
second. This defendant admits that it is mew, and was at all
times mentioned in this complaint, a publie service corporation. duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma
and as such corporation is now and at all times mentioned in said
complaint, the owner of a certain franchise granted by the muniei-
pality of Oklahoma City for the purpose of supplying and
40 selling to said municipality and the inhabitants thereof, nat-
ural gas for light. heat and power purposes, but denies that
as such public service corporation it exercises the right of eminent
domain fer the purpose of transporting and supplying by means of
pipe Lines Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and the inhabitants thereof
with all of the natural gas used by the said city and inhabitants
thereof for light. heat and power purposes, and denies that as public
service corporation it owns and possesses a monopoly in the business
of supplying Oklahoma City and the inhabitants thereof with
natural gas for the purposes atoresaid. and denies each and every
other allegation contained ino the second paragraph of said) com-
plaint,
Third. This defendant admits that its co-defendant. the Okla-
homa Natural Gas Company, is engaged in the business of trans-
porting gas by means of pipe lines to Oklahoma City, and admits
that the said Oklahoma Natural Gas Company is under contraet with
| OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. 25
the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company, and avers that a copy of
this contract is on file with this Comission.
Fourth. This defendant, in answering paragraph four of com-
plainants’ petition, states that the co-defendant. the Oklahoma
Natural Gas Company. maintains two main lines inte the City of
Oklahoma City, one of them reaching the Morrison field im north
central Oklahoma, and the other extending into the gas fields of
northeastern Oklahoma.
Fifth. Answering the fifth paragraph of complainants’ petition,
this defendant denies each and every allegation therein contained.
Sixth. Answering the sixth paragraph of conplainants’ petition,
this defendant states that on the 7th. Sth, {th and 10th of Decem-
ber, [N17 there was a shortage of gas in Oklahoma City, but denies
each and every other allegation contained in said paragraph.
4] Seventh. Answering the seventh paragraph of complain-
ants’ petition, this defendant states that aside from the re-
serve Which may be created by being connected with numerous wells
through the lines of its co-defendant, the Oklahoma Natural Gas
Company, this defendant has not maintained any reserve supply,
and states that itis net at all practical to maintain tanks and. re-
serves for storage of natural gas in such quantities as will reason-
ably supply the needs of the citizens of Oklahoma City during a
shortage such as occurred on the said 7th. Sth, Sth and 10th of De-
eemmber, L917,
This defendant states that while the storage of natural gas from
a physical standpoint is practical, from a business standpoint such
a storage capacity is entirely impractical. This defendant further
states that to supply a storage capacity suflicient to take care of a
shortage such as existed on the days mentioned would call for not
less than seven 15,000,000 cubic feet holders, which would cost, ex-
clusive of real estate on which to place such holders. met Jess than
$10,500,000,00. and that the depreciation and interest on this in-
vestment alone, not to say anything of operating costs ner return
upon the investment made, would equal the sum of $1.260,000,00
per year, or not less than $300,000.00 more than the total sum re-
ceived by this defendant and its co-defendant from the sale of gas
in Oklahoma City.
This defendant further states that for the year 1916 there was sold
in Oklahoma City, $926,000.00 of natural gas, and that ef this sam
this defendant received less than $300,000.00 as its share under the
contract existing between it and its co-defendant. the Oklahoma
Natural Gas Company, and that if storage capacity adequate to take
care of the shortage of natural gas during the period covered
42 by the complaint herein were ordered in at the expense of the
defendant. it would be subjected to a less of not less than
$900,000.00 per vear, and if such storage capacity were ordered in at
the expense of this defendant and its co-defendant, the said defend-
ants would be subjected to an outlay of at least $300,000.00 per vear
—
- 5 Stent ape See ew ele +
FON EEE LLP IS
24 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. TILE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
more than they would receive from the sale of natural gas in Okly
homa City.
Wherefore, having fully answered, this defendant prays that th
relief sought by the complainants be denied.
(Signed) PAUL REISS,
A ttorney for Okfahoma Gas & Electric Co.
Copy served January &, 1918.
RUTH & TRIPP.
By CL H. RUTH.
Endorsed: 3188. Before the Corporation Commission of Oks.
homa. Chas. TH. Ruth et al. Complainants, vs. Oklahoma Gas ¢
Electric Company, Defendants. Separate Answer of Oklahoma Ga
& Electric Company. Filed Jan. 9) 1978,
43 Thereafter. on the — day of _19--, Complainants filed
their reply to the separate answer of the Oklahoma Cas ¢
Electric Company, which is in words and figures following. to-wit
44 Before the Corporation Comission of the State of Oklahoma
No. SESS.
CHas. H. Rern et al:
Vs,
OKLAHOMA Gas & Evectrm Compasy and OKLANOMA NATUR
CrAx COMPANY,
Complainants Reply to Se parate Naswer of Oklahoma Gas and
Klectric Company.
Come new the complainants and for their reply to the separate
answer fo the respondent, Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company, state
1. That the tirst lettered paragraph of the said respondent does not
set up facts sufficient to constitute a defense to this complaint: that
the same is frivelous: based on assumption and opinion, and should
be stricken from the record,
2. Replying to the first figured paragraph of the said respondent:
answer, complainants state that these complainants are not advised
that all the names appearing on the said petition or complaint an
bona fide residents of Oklahoma City and users of natural gas: that
the said petitions were placed on street corners and given to divers
and sundry persons to cireulate. and these complamants did not read
the names on the said petitions or investigate, personally, the faet as
to whether the said signers used natural gas or not. but these corm:
plainants allege and state that there are eleven (11) Jack Johnsons
resident of Oklahoma City. S white and 3 colored: two (2)
*. Rose-
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. Vs. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL, 25
velts; two (2) Billie Burkes, and two (2) Woodrow Wilsons, and all
living Within the zone furnished with natural gas by the answering —
As 3. These complainants deny each and every material
allegation contained in paragraph four (4) of the respondents’
answer.
4. These complainants deny that not less than seven gas holders
of 15,000,000 feet capacity each would be necessary to maintain an
adequate reserve supply of gas. but these complainants allege that
ive (5) gas holders of a capacity of LO.000,000 feet each would be
sufficient: and complainants further deny that a gas holder of 15,-
H00,000 feet capacity would cost the sume of SE o00.000) One Million
five hundred thousand dollars.
Wherefore, complainants pray that the said respondent, Oklahoma
Gas & Fleetric Company be ordered and required by this commission
to immediately ereet and constrivet or cause to be erected and con-
structed not less than five gas holders of 10,000,000 feet capacity each
fora reserve supply for the users of natural gas in Oklahoma City,
and for such other and general relief as te this Conmounission may
wem Just and reasonable.
(Sed. ) CW. RUTITA
H.R. TREPP,
( ‘in placnants, and Atterine ys for all Complainants.
Endorsed: SESS. Corporation Commission of the State of Okla-
homa. Chas. H. Ruth, et als.. Complumants. vs. Oklahoma Gas &
Electric Co. and Oklahoma Natural Gas Company. respondents.
Reply to Separate Answer of the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.
Filed on the — of ———,. 1%
4 Thereafter, on the — day of ——. 1%. Cemplainants in
said causes filed their supplemental complatnt whieh is in
words and figures following to wit:
fi Before the Honorable Corporation Commission of the State of
Oklalwomia,
In re CONSOLIDATED CoMPpLArINts AGAINST THE ORLATOMA Gas &
Erectric CoMPANY AND THE OK EATOMA NATURAL Gas COMPANY,
Supplementad Complaint,
Comes now the complainants im the feregeing consolidated com-
plaints against the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company and the Okla-
homa Natural Gas Company, for shortage of gas in Oklahoma City.
and files this additional and supplemental complaint,
Complainants allege that since the date of the filing of the original
emplaints ino this preceeding. and specifically on the dates in-
duding the 10th te the 16th days of January, 1918, the said defend-
ant corporations, the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company and the
Awe
Stale BATS A A PEE SEES NR MORELIA Or Nae ROS
26 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL.
Oklahoma Natural Gas Company. have heen guilty of contempt of
this Honorable Coninisstotm, atid are naw cuilty of content in this.
to wit
Vhat during inte tatane and tthe prese rit tide the said defend tyits
have been guilty of the vielation of the order of this Tomorab'
Commission, Number 10Qs8. requiring the Gas Companies to furnish
an arbeqtiats supply of gas fer dlotiestie Cotistinptron: that during
seul tune thee defendant corporatiatis, and each oof them. were en
gaged in the business ef supplying matural gas te the itahiabatarits of
the Civ of Oklaheria City for pas and that during all of sard period
of time. aforesard, the defendant ED lave utterly fsriled te
frarnaisti cate celery eacate ~aypyp ty of gas for domestic tise of the
1s citizens of Oklahoma Crtv. on vielation of said) order of this
Commission and in vielation of their charter and tranehiss
and the duty owed te the puble ane ther customers
Conyphumant ribores sprcegtne ally lle ure? threat charming thie peried ateore-
said that me prertion of the Citv of Ook valvornsa Cats received an ade-
quate supply ef gas and that ay large pertions of the @itw there wer
Trtree- itt whoeh theme Wars treet at eritliebenit qquantitn et gas furnished tr
enable the roaintersatice of tires That regardless of the Morrison
myth that there i tiet tre cite: Porn shed te the ert zem- of Okla-
homa City an adequate sapply ter detnestic tse ame that neither of
said corporations boise tow aelediiat factlities for the furnishing te
the imbabitants ot Ok balers (itv an cudeqg isnt ~ipply of vas mn
moderately extreme winter weather
Complainants further allege that drring the times herembeter
mentioned the weather while cold was tet mnusually cold: aad that
the temperatures were not below the temperatures whieh could be
reasonably expected im thas cliate at this time of vear That hy
reason of thre breach of drat satiel viodat on oof lan aforesatd ther
has been great sufferimmeg. meenvenrenier sed charace te the ent
of Oklahoma City.
That there has heen cduaving thie Vitne =~ aferesa | and is new a oreat
shortage of coal. wood and other fucl-. and of stoves and other heat
Ing deviees for the vse of fuel other than cas unt Oldahema Citw. and
that end conditions has been breed tateauit Vers laarue ly ba thre know.
ingly false representations of the defendant corporations ond attieers
thereof that there would be ie Shortage of gas in Oklahoma City
during the winter af W17-1s ined espoet ally that there would he an
adequate ~uipepel of gas atte thy completion of the mains te thy
Morrison tield,
49 Complainant= allege and events show, that the tapping
of the Morrison field till leaves the defendant corporatlon
without an adequate supply of gas for the people of Oklahoma City,
and allege that the sid de fendant corperatrons have at all times
known, or would have known with the exercise of any eare, that thev
did not have an adequate supply of gas,
Complainants further allege that the said) defendants have de-
posits from their customers in Oklahoma City for gas. and have
rules authorizing the shutting off of ga- if meonthiy bills are not
paid, and have a rule requiring the payment of $1.00 for establish-
__ ” / 2 WA SN GAD EAI ARE MOEA AS WTR TERE IN ATL NLS ESR Saieeiiieeeia |
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL. Ze
rt ees:
ing a re-connection when gas is shut off. Complainant- allege that
these rules considered in connection with the deposits held by said
companies are unreasonable and void.
Complainants further allege that the said defendant corporations
well knowing that the meter readings are false and untrue and that
the supply of gas which the meters indicate are been furnished to
the various customers of said company has not been in faet fur-
nished, are now, and have been at the time of the filing of the origi-
nal complaints before this Tlonorable Comunission, threatening to
cut off service of all persons who do not promptly pay their bills and
by means of said threats have been wrongfully extorting large sums
of money from their customers in Oklahoma Citv. That said de-
fendant corporations have been cutting off the service of their eus-
tomers for the refusal to pay extortionate and unearned bills awd
will continue to so ent off the service to their said customers until
precluded by the order of this Honorable Conmaiission.
Complainants further allege that practically all of the consumers
of natural gas in the City of Oklahoma Citw have legal and legiti-
mate defenses against the bills rendered by the said defend-
w ant corporations for natural gas and that when said claims
are presented to the officers of the Oklahoma Gas & Electric
Company. Which Company is purporting to act as agent for the
(Alahomea Natural Gas Company, the persons presenting said claims
are treated with the utmost inselence and contempt. are advised te
lny coal, are informed that the said corporations have nothing to |
do with said claims. and are informed that the service of said cus- |
tomers will be cut off if the gas bills are net paid regardless of anv
question of counter claim or legal set-off.
Complainants further allege that unless relief is furnished the
aid corporations will absolutely refuse te hear or even consider anv
legitimate claims which may exist against said corporations or either
of them and that the gas supply of said customers will be ruthlessly
ent off regardless of anv contention of right. charity er lumanity.
Wherefore vour complainants ask that the said corporations and
both of the- be adjudged guilty of contempt for the further viola-
fon of the order of this Commission committed during the time
herembefore mentioned and that this Tlonorable Commission, in the
exercise of its Jurisdiction over said corporations, enjoin and restrain
the said defendant corporations from: cutting off the service of the
various customers of said corporations who claim: off-sets or defense
against bills rendered for gas services,
Complainants further allege that there is ne adequate remedy a
law, and further pray that this Tlonorable Commission issue a tem-
porary restraining order, restraining the said defendant corpora-
tions, their emploves and agents from the cutting off of service to
customers claiming defences against bills rendered. until the final
hearing of this complaint. and complainants further pray
| that on final hearing that the said) rules corporations he
held te be unreasonable and void. and that this Honorable
Commission issue an erder prohibiting said corporations or either of
them or their agents or emploves from cutting off the service of any
WRB eteeaenrrneterene 0 5 LOR SAR aS, BOG NORE ARLE NEE REE IN IRS ao . oe vant ese . Ay
28 OKLA. XAT. GAS CO, VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
customer who claims counter-elain: or defense against a bill rendere:
to the end that such disputes may be determined in due and regulor
course in the courts which have brea designated in the State «
Oklahoma for the determination of disputed questions of privat
right.
Affeorne is for f om plarnauts,
Endorsed: 2318S. Before the Honorable Corporation Coniuiuissie:
: of the State of Oklahoma. Tn ore Consolidated complaints agains
the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company and the Okbahoria Ne.
ural Gas Conmipany. Supplemental Conapolarnet, Filed on the dar
O19
oD Be it remembered. that on the Lith dav of December. 1917
TOF. Donnell. and others. commenced an action against The
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company by the tiling ef a complain
which is in words and figures as follows. to-wit
ao To the Honorable Corporation: Comiuntsston of the State of
Oklahorns
1. the undersigned. a resident. entizen and tax paver of Oklahome
City, county and state. and a patron of the Oklahoma Gas & blectri
Company. and a consumer of gas fer dotiestic purposes, for mivsef
and fer and on behalf ef all other citizens and tax pavers and con
sumers of gas in Oklahoma City, County and State. from the Okle
homa Gas & Eleetrie Company. do hereby represent to this fe fhe
Commission that covering the period of December Sth. th. 10h
and 11th. 1917. the temperature in Oklahoma City averaged belay
freezing: that continuously during said period of tie the said Oke
homa Gas & Electrie Company wholly failed to furnish to mivsed
and the remainder of the consurers of gas in Oklahoma City. ges
in sufficient quantities to tieet domestic purposes and whelly unsuth
cient to enable the resident- to remain in their homes Without ex-
treme suffering ocensioned hy the cold weather, and said persons
have been at all of said times without gas te prepare meals for their
family and to prevent the freezing of water pipes and tanks,
That as a result of the said failure of said Gas Company te pre
vide gas, members of the family of this complamant and of hun
dreds of other families in Oklahoma City contracted severe colds hy
reason of not being provided with gas to heat the houses and many
of said persons have contracted pneumonia, bronchitis and sever
colds and have in other wavs had their health impaired by reason
of said conditions: that in addition thereto great niunibers of fam:
lies were required to purchase stoves and fuel for the purpose of
warming their houses and of preparing their meals, and in maan
instances being unable to procure stoves and fuel have heen
A4 compelled to resort to hotels and te live im hotels at great
expense and inconverence to themselves, and in addition
have had to employ the services and pay doctor bills and purchase
OKLA, NAT. GAS CO, Vs. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL, 29
medicine, to the great damage of such persons, all of whom are
yatrons of said company.
That ih addition thay business comeerhs that have heen wholly
jepeudent lipon gas have heen compelled to suspend: their business
jurine the said period of trae. any of which are suspended at this
cme by renson oof the fathare of the satd Oklahoma Gas & Electric
Company to furnish gas to be used ta them business, all of suid busi-
ass being so stispended at great loss. datmiage, detriment and imneon-
ehience to the proprietors thereof and te therm patrons.
That the Gnderstonmed and all patrons of satd Gas Company have
gid hurge sans of tnomey di months and vears previous, in pavinent
f vues purchased abd coustumed bw each thereof, and dive during
aid period of time depended amd relied upon satd Company to
hich an adeg tate supply of gas to paced their needs anid Hecessi-
es and the satd Gas Company has at all times had fall knowledge
hat the utiderstgned: and tts patrons generally have depended Upon
nd }ysave relied thpron the “itt COTEEP ATEN solely to furnish Lis for the
ious Uses ated needs: that tn addition the said Gas Company has
tall times duurime the stummmer aud tall of this wear dn various wavs
sired the tudersigned and all patrons of said Company and users
f(ias dn Okla City that they liad arranged aid provided for an
equate supply of gas to the constiners forall purposes and under
conditions that qaight be reasonably comtetiplated and antier
ated, and that the undersigned and all consumer. of gas have fully
lied tiprot sald) assurance ana deponded tiprona said COMA to
vake good and te fualtill wt- said) assupanecs.
This conmplainant would further show that under the rales
os of the said Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company heretofore
promititvated and cuforeed agatust the consumers of gas, that
cid company tpot reftisal of consumers to pay their gas rentals re-
candles. of the enuse therefor have discontinued the gas service from
seh constimers abi biave: ref tise dite furnish further Gits Lo ste h per-
ens and that the sated company now threatens all consamers of gas
ho maa Ve tise or decline to pon the approved vias hills and who
wy have a just and legal defense and good clams thereto, and who
ave suffered the detriment. damage and imeonvenience heretofore
entioned: that such company will immediately, wholly and
romptly cliscontinue the said gas services to persons so declining and
fusing to make payinent of their gas bills and that unless this Com-
ussioh diakes an order restraining, prohibiting and forbidding sald
nds COMP TETEN from Carrying dnte execution the said threatened dis-
tintianees of said gas services of all persons so situated, they will
rely occasion suel persons mach suffering and discomfortare. and
seat tinanetal toss and damage,
Wherefore, this comp lanntnt, for hhinnself’, and on behalf of all
ther of said patrons of the said gas company and consumers of gas,
sspectfully asks this commission to seta day for hearing this cause
ad that notices be given said Gas & Electric Company of such hear
wand that durine the pendeney of the hearing herein, this Com-
sion inake an order restraining the said Oklahoma Gas & Electric
Supany from in any miamner cutting off impairing or discontinu-
PUNE WE ASI PIN ie PLEA Rl IO FORO oe iy
30 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO, VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
iny the said gas serviee te this complainant and all other patrons of
the suid Gas & Electre Company, and consumers of gas, who may
have a just and legal defense or counter claim: to the elaim: of sue
(as Company agarist such persons: and that Upon oa further fea.
Ine herem the said order may be nade permanent until sue
ti persons ane the sid Gas Compatiy may adjust their dithient
or their legal rights be determined not court of Coltpeten
jurisdiction. and for sueh other, further amd proper relief as tay ts
Warranted, and that in aedldlitions such penalty hae enjoined Upon, and
against sid Gas Company as ander the law and faets in this eas
tay be warranted. and for such other and general relief as the Con:
Mission may deem: proper.
(Sed. ) T. F. DONNELL.
A. T:-BOY¥S.
Issistant Mun werpal Coun velar
CHARLES SELBY,
County Attorney,
PORTER Th. MORGAN, |
Assistant County Attorne 7
idarsed To the TTanoratel- Corporation Coimilssion of the Stat
of Oklahoma. In re Gas & Electric Company. Complaint. — Filed
December 12. 1917.
De Thereafter. and on January & TOTS. the Oklahoma Gas ¢
Electric Conupans filed) its answer an cause No, 3192. which
said answer is in words and figures. following to-wit:
as Before the Corporation Comiunission of the State of Oklahoma
Cause No, 3192.
T. PL Doxsenr, Complainant,
+o,
THe OKLAHOMA GaAa~ & Enrerrie Company, Defendant.
Answer,
The defendant, the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company, answer
ing the above complaint. adtmits that the complainant is a resident,
citizen and tax-paver of OkKlahoria City, County and State, and «
patron of the Oklahoma Gaz & Electric Company, and a consumer oi
gus for dotiestic purposes.
The defendant states that it is a corporation, organized and op
erating under the laws of the State of Oklahorin. and among other
activities is engaged in distributing uatural gas in the City of Okla
homa City as agent for the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, whieh
last named company is Likewise a corporation existing and operating
under the laws of the State of Oklahoma,
re ee an . Pr NR A AA ae Sib Ae TNL REE IRR LFA TYAN EMAL IS ec
OKLA. NAT. GAs CO. V8. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. 31
The defendant further states that it is the owner of a franchise
fom the City of Oklahoma City. permitting it to distribute in said
(itv nattiral gas to the said City and the citizens thereof,
The defendant further states that aside from the contract
“4 eNistine Letween i! and the Ok lihvorae Natural (ras Company,
there is no relationship between it and the Oklahoma Natural
ris Company, aid states that there are Hho Colmtiion stockholders, di-
tors or otlicers as between this defendant and the said Ok dahon
\atural Cas Conipaniy,
The defendant acluaits threat covering the period of December Sth,
ch. 10th and Tdth 10d. the letaperature in Op dabionnea City uver-
ved below freezing. and that under the extreme weather conditions
hich did prevail ith Oklahoma City during thie sald period mien-
soned. there was a vis shortive andl sdiaits that there Were Instances
hen sid shortage did Cultise ~ulleriny, but denies thrat during said
eriod of thine the said Oklahoma Gas & Eleetric Company wholly
sled to furnish the complainant und the reminder of Colstners
1 gas in Ook Tethvonnace City. vas in suflicrent quantities to lnecet domestic
irposes, and wholly tsutiicient to enable the residents to remain in
weir hotties Without eNTretue <uiferine occasioned hy the cold
eather, cutie detited thisit “tid pcrsonis, ineludine atid coluplainant,
We been at all of said times without eas te prepare meals for their
milie= and to prevent the freezing of water pipes and tanks, and
t defendant Lredie rally denies each and every othe r allegation in
ad complaint set forth
The defendant states that under the rules and regulations here-
“tore promitiloated hy it anid tiled with and approved by the Cor-
ratlon Conatiisston, and the contract ~iened hy Its patrons, includ-
gthe complainant herein. it has the legal right te discontinue
ervice for Hon-pavinent of bills rendered for gas furnished by it.
t denied that at) has heretofore enforced said right in anv Case
lich Was not justified “regardless of the eatise therefor” as is alleged
said comnplanat.
Wherefore. having fully answered, this defendant prays
that the relief sought iy the complainant he denied,
(Sed.) PAUL REISS,
Attorne UI] for OO) lahoma Cras & Klectric Company.
Copy served Jan'y 8. LaTS,
T. F. DONNELL.
Endorsed: 3192. Before the Corporation Commission of Okla-
ma. PLP. Donnell, Complainant, vs. Oklahoma Gas & Electric
ve. Defendant. \newer. leiled Jaa 9, 1918.
Be it rena hibered, threat on the ldth day of December, 1917,
Charles Bo Selby. et al. commenced an action against the
tlahomia Natural Gas Company. et al. by the tiline of a complaint
hich is in words and figures as follows. te Wit:
PN rence scrapers 5 83 HELE RA LIE EBL LENIN ADEE NAINA AN Ae I ARSED SN Li, IRN ee eeheeeaiatiog " Oa
of OKLA. NAT. GAS CO, VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
He Before the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahon:
lhore OL AHOMA Gas & Eneerkic Company and OKLAHOM,
NATURAL Gras Company,
To the Honorable Conimuission :
The undersigned complanants of the Oklahoma Gas & Electr
Company and the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company would: sugge
to this Honorable Conmuiission that said corporations are both guilt
of comteripet of this Honorable Commission in the violation of onde
Humber LO2S, reported in the reports of this Commission of 1415-1
wt page Ha whielr order in tertis applies to all public service gy
companies in the State and which requires such companies “to s
construct and equip and tiaiitarn its pape tines and tains and dis
tributing systems as te be able at all times to furnish an adequar
Supply of gas for dotmiestie consumption and is hereby ordered 1
furnish and supply at all tines an adequate amount of the prope
quality for heating, cooking and Hohting for domestie CONSUMPTION,
Your complainants represent that the said corporations have wt
terly. wilfully and negligently failed in all respeets to comply wit!
said order in that said corporations have utterly, wilfully and neg:
gently failed to supply te the City of Oklahoma City and the in
habitants thereof. an adequate supply of gas as required by. sai
order, and particularly have they neglected to furnish said: adequat
supply te said City and the tuhalatant: thereof for the period 6
December Sth. Sth. POth. Pith. D2th and P8th. 1917, an
wt that by reason of said failure the inhabitants of the City
Oklabonas City have suffered vreat inconvenience and injurie
and that said violation of the said order of this Honorable Conis
slen ly std COPrporationys, the health of the people of the city: ha
been endangered, business has been interrupted and that unless thi
Honorable Conimission takes ee and drastic action great an
lasting injurv will result.
That at least one death mia be direethy attributed to the negligen
amd wilful failure of the said corporations to comply With the sai
order of this Honorable Comiunission. sad) that numerous fatalitie
mnay he expected frotu a contintianee of the conditions mow existing
Your complainants hereby complaining on behalf of the entir
population of the City of Oklahoma Citw. allege the following fact
Ist. That for a lone period of vears the said Corporations hav:
failed to furnish an adequate supply of gas to meet the demands o!
the City of Oklahoma City at tines of ordinary severe winter weather
2d. That sid Corporations have continously and repeated] y rey)
resented to the inhabitant. of the City of Oklahonmi City that in th
future there would be an adequate supply of gas, thus lalling thi
people into a feeling of sceuritw and preventing the said people fron
making other provisions against ordinary winter weather,
e
Sd. That the said corporations have been wilfully negligent in
heir construction of the plant in that their pipe lines have been
uegligently laid so near the surface of the ground as to be subject to
the Weather conditions and as a result there is oa continued menace
of the breaking of pipes whenever the temperature falls to
nf the pornt whieh may usually be expeeted in this climate and
that in the past breaks of this character have been a frequent
WCUPPOTICE,
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. 33
4th. That the said corporations have utterly failed to provide more
han one pipe Tine by which gas is brought ite the city and it of a
suticient size to meet the demands of usually severe winter weather
inthis climate and have utterly failed to provide any storage facili-
ties for the storing of gas or any other facilities for meeting the usual
demands incident to ordinary severe winter conditions in this eli-
mate although at all ties knowing that their facilities are inade-
quate to supply gas as required by the above mentioned order,
On information and belief complainants state that the two cor-
porations above named have practically the same stockholders in so
far at least as the controlling stock is concerned and that each of sald
corporations Is douinated and controlled by identical stockholders.
Phat more than fifty. per cent of each of the corporations is owned
woacertain foreign corporation,
oth. That the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Compauy now has, and
tor many Vears has held a franchise from Oklahoma City for the
tunishing and supplying of gas to the City for domestic purposes
residences, and jieat and fuel purposes in the various business in-
dustries in Oklahoma City. and that said corporation under its said
franchise has. during all of said period of time, and now has its vari-
us plpe lines, laterals and connection with practically every build-
ng in Oklahoma City: that the population of Oklahoma City have
kpended almost exelusively during the past several vears upon the
“id Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company to supply and pro-
Ty Vide gas through its mains, laterals and connections to them
for their various uses, and have equipped their places of resi-
nce and their places of business with gas heating devices in reli-
lee pon repeated assurances made by the said corporations that it
would at all times furnish and provide adequate and ample quanti-
tes of gas for such uses and purposes: that in addition the popula-
ton of Oklahoma City has depended upon the said corporation sup-
ving and providing gas for said purposes by reason of the duty
mjoined upon said corporation by the laws of the State of Okla-
oma, and particularly the orders promulgated by this Honorable
“ommission with reference thereto by authority of law, and that as a
result thereof coal dealers and hardware men have not. and could
wt maintain supplies to take the place of gas for saeh purposes.
hth. This Honorable Commission is farther shown that under the
Charter of the said corporation, Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company,
ad its franchise aforesaid, with Oklahoma City, and under the laws
fthe State of Oklahoma. and the rulings. reculations and orders
s—312
84 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL.
e
of this Honorable Commission, that the said corporation owes a pub-
lie duty to the population of Oklahoma City, practically all of whon
are its patrons, and bave been its patrons as consumers of gas for
several years past. Its duty se enjoined consists, as specified by the
order of this Cominission in being “able at all times to furnish an
adequate supply of gas for domestic consumption and supply at al)
times an adequate amount of the proper quality for heating, cook:
ine and lighting for domestic consumption” as well as for the pur.
pose of furnishing fuel for business industries,
That by reason of the franchise so conferred by the said miunics
pality upon said corporation: at aforesaid, the patrons, which com
prise practically the entire population of said City have become en-
tled te adequate and ctfierent service in the furnishing of gas to
them by the said corporation.
66 That by reason of the failure of said corporation as afore:
sald to furnish or provide adequate Gus supply to the said
patrons of the said corporation, that the health of hundreds of per:
cons has been seriously impaired and many thereof have becom
sick and hed-ridden with severe colds, pMeumOnital, pleurisy and other
ailments directly due to cold: houses. ane thousands of families of
Oklahoma City have been compelled te furnish stoves and coal and
other equipment to reduce their sufferme occasioned by the said
default of said corporation
th. That under the powers conferred upon this Honorable Com-
mission by the Constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma and
veting In pursuance thereof. this Commission is clothed with author:
WV and power to take full charge, control and management of the |
said corporations in the way of carrving out and performing the
obligations, both expressed and implied under the charter and fran-
chise possessed by then as heretofore mentioned, and to place the
said corporations i the management of suitable and proper persons
to the end that the right. of the people ay be subserved, and the
health and the lives of Citizens, patrons of sald corporation in sald
City may be protected as against the results of the failure of said
corporation to perforna its duty under the laws of this state: that by
reason of the default and failure of the said corporation aforesaid,
os herein complained of, and by reason of the order of this Comunuis:
sion heretofore mentioned, the sald corporations are in contempt of
the said order.
Sth. That the said corporations, as complunants are informed
and believe, and therefore allege, have at this time no arrangements
whereby they may immediately afford to the said: citizens of said
municipality any partieatar cerview, and that by reason of the cold
weather and the approaching winter Which may reasonably be air
ticipated to bring an extreme and lower temperature at ally
OT date. it: becomes necessary that this Honorable Coniission
immediately make such order as may he proper and nece=
sary for the taking charge and control and management of the bus:
ness of said corporations; that each of the subseribers hereto are cite
zens and residents of Oklahoma City, and patrons of said corpo
-
rations and consumers of its gas, and make this applreation to
themselves and on behalf of all citizens and) persons similarly <itu-
ated.
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. sta)
Wherefore, your complainants pray this Honorable Conmitiisston
that the said corporations and each of them: be adjudged to Joe dn con
apt of this Commission and: that they be dealt with a= the tacts
justify, and your complainants further allege and state that the eon
Citions that mow exist in the City of Oklahoma City os net dite te
any lack or shortage of the supply of gate. "Whaat cary cateagele stipes
of gas is available ame that aiuple facilities could be provided: ane
that the present situation in the City of Oklahoma City either cts
y incompeteney in the management of the said corporations cated
ach of them, or is due to the unspeakable greed which ts willing
wy permit public suffering and death in order to make ab Unjust
profit: that each of sald corporations Is it solvent, golly comeerh
with ample resources to provide for the necessary facilities
Therefore, calling attention of this Honorable Commission to Se-
jon Laws of 19138, Chapter 5, which gives this Honorable Commit
Jon “general supervision of all publie utilities with power to fix and
ctablish rates and to preseribe rules, requirements and regulation
dfecting their service operations and the management and conduct
af their business.” and giving this Honorable Commission farther
and complete visatorial and inquisitorial power: that this Tones
able Commission may proceed: to take such steps as tri be
is necessary to alleviate the present situation and prevent the
occurrence of any sitnilar condition, and that to the enel that
the public may be atforded the services necessary to its health and
wifety, and that this Commission proceed in exereising its powers ts
ake control of said corporations by the appointinent of suitable and
capable managers, in order that the safety and life of the imbabaitant-
of the City of Oklahoma City: may be assured and protected,
Complainants further pray in view of the public exigeney and
danger which requires immediate action, that the said corporation=
may be cited immediately to appear and show cause why the relief
praved for in this complaint should not be eranted and why they
should not be punished for contempt, and particularly why this
Commission would not forthwith make an order taking Inte its con
trol and management the affairs of said corporations, by appointing
witable persons as tmumagers therefor, under proper orders of this
Commission, and to then and there make such discoveries as to the
facts in their possession concerning the resources of the two cor-
porations, their facilities, intentions, ete., as may be necessary for
the protection of the public, in order that this Commission may
render full, complete and adequate relief from the perilous public
Jtuation now existing by reason of the default of said corporation=
and their failure to obey the order of this Honorable Commission,
(Sed. ) CHAS. B. SELBY.
County Attorney, Oklahoma County.
H. M. GREEN.
Assistant County Attorney, Oklahoma County.
PORTER H. MORGAN.
Assistant County Attorney, Oklahoma County.
sacieahanmeetaeimentl Tamang se wera rene wee Vio LA RANT EN NTIS AC . . ’ ~™
36 OKLA, NAT. GAS CO, VS, THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL.
Endorsed: Noo Si97. Before The Corporation Commission of the
State of Oklahoma. tn ore Okluhoma Gas & Electric Company and
Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, Complaint, Filed Dee. 14, 1917,
uy Thereafter, on the 2d dav of January, 1918, the Oklahoma
Natural Gas Company tiled its separate answer in cause No,
807, whieh answer is in words and figures following, to-wit
TU Before the Corporation Cottnission of the State of ( )klahoma,
No. 319%,
In re OKLAHOM, Cas & Enecrric Company and OKLAHOMA
NATURAL Gas CoMPANY.,
Ne parate | psirer of Oklahoma Natural (fas Company.
Comes now the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, and for its
separate aubswer to the complaint heretefore filed in this cause by
the County Attommey of Oklahoma County, Oklahomi, answering
Says:
This defendant is engaged in the business of producing, purchas-
ing and transporting natural vas to he sold to the inhabitants of
Oklahoma City, and a large number of other towns and cities in the
State of Oklahoma. Tn the prosecution of its business it conveys
natural gas to the city limits of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, where it
delivers the same to its co-defendant, the Oklahoma Gas & Electric
Company, Whieh in turn distributes the same to the inhabitants of
Oklahoma City. That it has been engaged ino this business for a
period of approximately ten years, and during that time it has used
every means within its power to deliver at all times an adequate
supply of Gus for doiiestic consumption us well as for use for power
plants, not only in Oklahoma City, but in many other towns of the
State of Oklahoma. That i-s co-defendant, the Oklahoma Gas &
Electric Company, is dependent upon this defendant for the supply
of natural gas whieh it distributes in the City of Oklahoma City,
and this defendant at all times has and is now furnishing an ade-
quate supply of gas in Oklahoma City exeept me rare occa:
71 sions. Tt admits that for a few days during the month of
December, LOTT, its supply of gas has been insufficient to
meet all requirements, hut in this connection it respectfully shows
to the Commission that it furnished all the gas whieh it has been
able to produce or purchase, and not only all the gas whieh it has
been able to produce or purchase in the vicinity of its pipe-lines, but
that it has taken extraordinary precautions to supply an adequate
supply of gas for its customers during the present winter, That in
doing so it has extended its main trunk line to what if known as
the Morrison Field by building at a great expense to it a twelve
inch line from a point on its original system near Wellston, Okla
homa, in a northerly direction to the Morrison Field, and that in
so doing it has expended approximately the sum of $800,000. That
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. Vs. THE STATE OF OXLA. ET AL. 37
the Morrison Field is about 53 miles distant from: its former pipe
line system and this defendant was not bound in law te expend said
sum of money, or to extend its line to said distant field. but has done
was a business proposition and in order to supply the continually
increasing demands of its consumers for gas. That during the dates
complained of, to-wit, from December Sth to December 14th, 1917,
hoth inclusive, this defendant has supplied for use at Oklahoma City
approximately 20,000,000 eubie feet per day. or approximately the
equivalent in heat units of 1.000 tons of coal per day during said
period,
This defendant further savs that on December 18, 1917. it com-
pleted its pipe line connection with the Morrison Pield. and. that
since said time it has had an additional supply of gas from: said
Morrison Field of approximately 20,000,000) cubie feet per day,
which is the carrving capacity of its pipe line connection with said
Morrison Field. This defendant —- that at present it has an ade-
quate supply of gas for all domestic consumption ino the City of
Oklahoma City. and in supplying its consumers if is now and
i2 has at all times heen giving preference to domestic consump-
tion,
This defendant further says that in the nature of things the quan-
ity of gas which it can supply is limited by the amount of gas which
tean purchase, and by the carrving eapacity of its pipe line svstem.
This defendant further says that its original pipe line connecting
Oklahoma City with the gas fields, was a twelve inch line from whieh
was supplied not only Oklahoma City, but Edmond, Guthrie, Shaw-
nee, Chandler, and various other towns along its svstem. That
when said line was constructed it was of ample capacity to supply
the people then living in the towns supplied by it. but that the
City of Oklahoma City since its original pipe line was constructed
has increased in. population from approximately 80,000 to approxi-
mately 100,000; that the City of Tulsa whieh is also supplied by
this defendant, during the same period has inereased in population
from approximately 12.000 to approximately 65.000. that the City
ff Muskogee, which is likewise supplied by this defendant, had
during said time inereased in population from: approximately 20,000
0 85,000, and that the population in other towns and cities sup-
tied by this defendant has likewise imereased. That at the same
ume the population served by this defendant has been increasing
wrapidly the supply of gas available in Oklahoma has been shifting
from place to place. That the original fields from which this de-
fendant procured a supply of gas have been almost exhausted, and
that very little of the gas now served to the people along its lines
s coming from said fields. That new fields have come in from
ime to time which this defendant has reached by the building of
idditional pipe lines at great expense, and that said fields have
listed from two to three years. That this defendant extended its
pipe line into the Cushing field during the vear 1912 at a cost of
approximately $325,000. but that the gas supply from the
3 Cushing field has been largely depleted.
That the supply of gas from the various fields whieh it has
ached has been exhausted largely by waste and not by use, and
Me EAE AE ONL LADLE AER IRL LLEL NLL LALA LOE A ILE ELA AAA LM
35 OKLA, NAT. GAS CO, VS, THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL.
that the defendant during the past eight vears has been doing every.
thing within its power to bring about the conservation of gas within
the State of Oklahoma, and has at all times co-operated with thy
publie offichils of the State in seeking to conserve: the stipply Ol gas
for domestic consumption. ‘Phat in undertaking to Keep pace
with the consumers served by this defendant. in addition to extend.
Ing its Lines to mew fields has also built an additional twelve ineh
line from Oklahoma City alongside its original twelve-ineh line for
a distance of thirty miles to Wellston. thereby doubling its carry.
Ing capacity for that distance. That while the price of fuel during
said period has advaneed from forty cents per barrel to S185 per har.
rel the price of natural gas has net been changed in Oklahoma City
Further answering the speeitie charges of satd) complarmt. this
defendant says
1. It demes that for a Jeng period of time this defendant has
failed te furnish an adequate supply of gas te meet the dennunds of
Oklahoma City in ordinary severe winter weather, but on the con:
trary itavers that during the ten vears whieli it las been supplying
gas at Oklahoma City there have been very few days when the snp
ply Was not adequate for all domestic COTSTpton,
2. It denies that it has continuousty represented to the inbiabitants
of Oklahoma City that there would be an adequate supply of gas.
bat has at all times merely engaged to furnish satd gas as it was
able to procure and had advised all consiimers to dave a supply af
coal or other fuel on hand in eases of cmergeney,
3. Tt denies that at bas been negligent mm the eonstruetion of its
Pipe line =Vstem, and lentes that Ite littes are lated ~) Dhear
a4 the ground as te be inguprousty atheeted during cold weather
It likewise demies that breaks init. pipe Times have beon of
frequent occurrence. but en the contrary alleges that during the
ten Vvears it has supplied Oklaboria City with gas there have been
but two breaks. one of whieh was caused by a thood of timusual mag:
nitude Washing ont oa part oof its pipe Tine. and the other caused
by an unavetdable explosion,
1. Tt denies that it has utterly fared te provide more than one
pipe line. and avers that tt has doubled back at= line from Okbihbena
(itv te Wellston. and das bialt mew dines inte various gas fields
for the purpose of procuring an adequate supply of gas,
It admits that it has not provided storage facilities for the storage
of gas other than ats pipe lime svstem. and in this conneetion it avers
that the cost of building storage facilities is so great as to be pro
hibited and that in the prosecution of the natural gas business stor.
age facilities are not usual or customary. and in fact are practically
unknown. Tt likewise demies that its stockholders are practically
the same as the stockholders of the Oklahoma Gas & Eleetrie Com-
pany, but on the contrary avers that its stockholders are ontirely
separate and distinet from the OkKlihotma Gas & Electric Company,
and that there is ne common ownership or common management of
the two defendants.
= Te or Seen Bio a s ae Bee Dine er Ce ton Wait se aes Le eee Se rene eRe
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO, VS. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL. 30
It admits that the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company, its co-
defendant, has a franchise for the distribution of gas in Oklahoma
city. but it denies that the population of Oklahoma City has a right
wo depend entirely for fuel upon these defendants. and avers that
the see the people Wish to Use gas ix because it is che: aper and
more convenient fuel than any other, and not beeanse other fuel
is not available. but on the contrary it alleges that before it
rt constructed its pipe line system. the people of Oklahoma City
were entirely without natural gas. and that they have now
the same opportunity of procuring ether fuel as they would have if
there were no natural gas to be supplied.
i. It denies the averments of the sixth paragraph of said) com-
plaint.
7. It denies the averments of the seventh paragraph of said ecom-
plaint.
It denies that it or its co-defendant has at any time withheld
ay available gas from the City of Oklahoma City and refers to the
jlegations of this answer herembetore set forth showing the efforts
thas made at all times to furnish an adequate supply of gas.
Wherefore. having fully answered said complaint, this defendant
pays that it may be discharged.
| (Sgd.) AMES. CHAMBERS, LOWE &
RICHARDSON,
Attorne ys for Defendant.
Endorsed: No. 3197. Before the Corporation Commission | of
the State of Oklahoma. Tn re Oklahoma Gas & Eleetrie Company
nd Oklahoma Natural Gas Company. Separate Answer of Okla-
woma Natural Gas Company. Filed Jan. 2. P97S,
Hi Thereafter, on the Sth day of January, T9DS. The Ok-
lahoma Gas & Electric Company tiled its separate answer in
ause No, 3197, whieh is in words and figures following, to-wit.
7D Before the Corporation Comunssion of the State of Oklahoma.
Cause No. 3197.
Inre OKLAHOMA Gas & Evectric Company and OKLAHOMA NAT-
URAL GaAs CoMPaANy,
Separate A nswer of Oklahonea Gras & Bleetric Company.
The defendant. the Oklahoma Gas & Eleetrie Company. ca its
“parate answer to the complaint heretofore filed in this case by the
‘ounty Attorney of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and says this
lefendant is engaged in the business of distributing natural gas to
‘he inhabitants of Oklahoma City, in the State of Oklahoma. under
CO ea HR NEE LPC NE eS OT SAE RELIED RENE TS OSLO a
4U OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. Vs. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
the terms and conditions of a franchise granted to it by the City of
Oklahoma City: that it secures this natural gas frome its co-defendant
the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, whieh said Company is thy
only Company at the present time equipped te supply matural ga
to the City of Oklahoma City,
This defendant denies that it has utterly, wilfully and negligently
failed im all respects to comply with Order No. L028 of this Commis
stonoon December Sth. th. Oth, Pith, D2th. and DSth. Tory. a
set forth in said commplamt, orat any other time.
This defendant denies that any death may be directly attriuted
to its neghvenee and wilful failure te comply with said Order. and
demies each and every other allegation in said petition contamed
This defendant further states that it has distributed to th
City and citizens of Oklahoma City all the gas whieh it was
able to obtain on the dates mentioned in said complaint. and
that at bias done evervthing In tts powWer to protect the domestic eon.
sumers of said City of OK labors City. net only on the dates men.
tioned in said complaint, butoat all other times. ‘Phis defendant
further states that while it operates a power house in’ the City of
Oklahoma City for the generation of electricity, relying greatly ripon
vas asa fuel in said power house. it did on the dates mentioned in
sad complaint, and oon Tata other days, deprive itself of the use
of vas as a fuel in order that the requirenments of the domestic con-
summers of Oklahoma City might be more fully and) satisfactorily
served, notwithstanding the faet that in se doing it subjected itself
teat toss of many thousands of dollars in the operation of its power
plant for the yeneration of electricity,
This defendant further states that for the menth of December
Me. the -hertane of gas. whieh oat admats did exist, especially on
the dates mentioned in the complaint, caused this defendant a loss of
hot Tess then $15,000.00 in the operation of its power plant for the
generation of electricity, due te the faet that this defendant was com:
pelled to burn fuel erin said power house
This defendant denies that it- or its co-defendant lave utterly
failed to provide More than one pipe tine with whieh gas was brought
inte the Civ. and denied that the pipe lines and distributing svstem
in the City of Oklahoma City are Wradequate too meet the demands
of usually severe winter weather in this elimate.
This le fendant admits that it dias thet provided anv storage fa-
cilities as praved for in paragraph four of complainants) peti-
“an tion. but states that While the ~torage of natural gas froma
physical standpoint os practical. from al business standpoint
such a storage capacity is entirely iopractical. This defendant
further states that to supply a storage capacity sufficient to take eare
ofa shortage sneh as existed on the days mentioned would eal) for
net less than 1A 000000 cubie holders, whieh would cost, exclusive
of real estate on which te place sueh holders. not less than S10.
SOOO OO) and that the depreciation and interest on this invest-
ment alone. net te sav anvthing of operating costs ner return upon
the Investment made would equal the sum: of 81.260,000,00 per vear,
—_—_ vase” Zeta DYCd ieee . a en as GAN ae vote Peak APE DAE a? fine MOS A Dad OED tet Sn ONY
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. Vs. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. 41
op not Jess than $300,000.00 move than the total sum received from
the sale of gas in Oklahoma City.
This defendant further states that for the vear 1416 there was sold
1 Oklahoma City $926,000.00 of natural gas. and that of this sum
his defendant recerved les~ than S300000.00 as its share under the
ontract existing between it} and its co-defendant. the Oklahoma
Natural Gas Company, and that if storage capacity adequate to take
are of the shortage of natural gas during the period covered by the
wmplaint hereim were ordered in at the expense of this defendant. it
vould he subjected to a loss less than S900 000.00 per Vear, and if
vich storage capacity were ordered in at the expense of this defend-
atand its co-defendant. the said defendants would be subjected to
noutlay of at least $500,000.00 per vear more than they would re-
vive frome the sale of natural gas in Oklahenis City.
This defendant denies that this defendant and its co-defendant
ave the same stockholders in so far as controlling stock is concerned.
nd demies that each of said corporations is dominated and controlled
by identical stockholders, This defendant denies that more
“I than fiftw per cent of each of the defendant corporations are
owned by a certain foreign corporation, and states that there
sno common ownership whatever between this defendant and. its
defendant. and that there is no common mianagement between this
ifendant and its co-defendant. and further states that this defend-
stand its codefendant are in every manner, shape and form, save
‘rthe single exception of a contract existing between this defendant
nd its co-defendant as to the distribution of eas in Oklahoma City,
sholly independent.
Wherefore. having fully answered. this defendant pravs that the
‘lef asked for by the complainant herein be denied and that this
vfendant be discharged,
(Sgd.) PAUL REISS.
Attorne 4 for Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.
Endorsed: No. S107, Corporation Comunission of Oklahoma. Un
‘Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. Cause No. 3107. Separate Answer
‘Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company, Filed January 9. LOTS,
Thereafter. on the 2d) day of January. TOTS. 9 hearing was
had in said cause before the Corporation Commission of the
“ate of Oklahoma, and the following proceedings and evidence had
al introduced :
42 OKLA. NAT. GAs CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL.
8? Before the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma,
Cause Number SiSs.
Cras. HW. Rete and H.R. Trier, Complainants.
Vs,
Ox iAnoMA Gas & Ereerrie Coo and ORD ArOMA NAPURAL Gas Co,
Defendants.
“ause Nemiber 8702,
TOF. Doxsenr et ab. Complamants,
Vs.
OKprAnewa Gas & Ereerrie Co. Defendant.
‘ause Nuruber S17
Cras. Bo Senny et al. Comphiumants,
iB:
OKLAHOMA Gas & Eveetrie Co. and OR LAGOA NATURAL Gis Co
Defendants.
Appearances:
C,H. Ruth and H. FF. Tripp. by ©. HE. Rath.
T. FP. Donnell. for himself. and others.
Chas. Bo Selby. for Hitiselt and others
Paul Ko Reiss. Representing the Oklahoma Gas a Pelee
Company tn all three eases
BooAmes. Representing the Okliboma Natural Geis Com
pany, in Cause- Number SUSS and OTe.
Transcript of Prose eodings Tlad Before Cn ISSTON OTS Hiinphres
and Russell, at Oklaheia (ity, January Pnd. VIS.
Reporter, ELF. Galbraith,
&3 Commissioner Humphrey. Shall we try each separately or
otherwise ’
B. Ames: So far as the Oklahoma: Natural Gas Company ts
concerned we would prefer to try them both together,
Judge Ruth: Se far as the case of Co TE Ruth. et alo against th
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. T have no objection toe a eonselidation
of the eases if it will expedite thatters.
Commissioner: Humphrey: Then let all three cases he consol:
dated.
| oo pan
Fee EE tt ea 7 aE ee as Ca De TR i ee ee a ai 8 See ete
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL. 43
CoH Ruth: In the first case. in whieh Tam complainant, T de-
jire to amend my complaint at this time by adding thereto a list of
jhout 12,000 complainants who desire te jom me in this complaint,
‘List as explained, filed and made a part of complaint in’ cause
Z3PSS.)
Paul K. Reiss: With the permission of the Commission the de-
fondant, the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., desire to file a formal an-
aver, ( Answer of Okla. Gas & Elect, Co, tiled.)
Chas. Bo Selby: Tamight make this suggestion ; ] understand from
Counsel representing the Gas Compay that it is admitted that there
vasa shortage of gas: with that understanding
CoB. Ames: Ttomight possibly save time by reading the answer
ofthe Oklahoma Natural Gas Company. (Answer read and filed as
a part of the reeords, )
Chas. UH. Ruth: PE feel that we should demur to this answer for the
wason that we have asked the Court to require them to discover to
this court the names of the stockholders, and this answer is not
sificient pleadings when it states that the stockholders are not the
we: Wwe oasked that they show their hooks as to whe the actual
stockholders are: To feel that they have not fully answered, and
should be required to do so, We ask them to show the amount of
vas, or the volume of gas. furnished by the Oklahoma Natural Gas
Co. to the Oklahoma Gas & Electrie Co. We ask that they discover
iy their answer the volume of gas distributed to the people of Okla-
. homa City: we ask that they discover the names of the stock-
4 holders of each of the companies, so that this court may com-
pare them and not put the burden of proof on us. We have
cked that subpena be issued requiring them to appear and bring
their books. and feel that they should be required to set up in their
answer who the stockholders are: that is what we are asking for.
They set up here that they have furnished gas here that is equitable
tothe heat units ef 1.000 tons of coal. “They do net set up what
the heat unit in 1.000) feet of gas is: To understand the British
Thermal unit is the unit by which heat is measured in gas. Tf
the proceedings were in’ Distriet Court the answer would be suffi-
cient. but here T do not feel itis sufficient. As a matter of faet we
‘led a prvelpe for stibypertia avoulnst these COMPpATEs, and | would
like to ask at this time if their Secretary is here with the books as
asked for: this book. stock book should show the President of the
Board of Directors, and all stockholders, if attachment bas not been
ised shall ask that it be dome so. We have alse issued sulperna:
for J. Ro Cottingham, Phil Baird. Mr. Kunderer, Paul Gresham,
Wo R. Molinard. and Ro Fo Alexander: these subpanas have been
regularly issued: they set up in their answer that they have never
represented to the peaple of Okbkuhome City that there would be a
sufficient supply of gas. This information was given to the people
of Oklahoma City by a committee consisting of J. Ro Cottingham,
Rev, Phil Baird. and W. R. Molinard. The citizens certainly were
lead to believe that there would be an adequate supply of gas: we
have the utmost confidence in Rev. Phil Baird. J. Ro Cottingham
and Mr. Molinard, but we want these people here to find out what
ae ERT AE A PA PRAIA SOE ER ET he RE AE OS RO EE OE ee ay
44 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO, Vs, THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
statement was taade to this Gas Company to eause them te ve te 9
people of Oklahoma City and sav oRest assured, vou will fi,
plenty of gas this winter at Oklalons Citys it will mot be dens
by counsel that such report was made throneh the papers. ands
want te Know what that <tatement was based ons whether ont
statementof Mr Molimard or the Oklahonn Natural Gias €s nd
feel that this as hardly a proper answer. Pwonld like te in uy
Mr. Alexander ts here
SO Commissioner TDamplirey: Maro Alexander. seems te
Present: What other Wittiess cla vou desire to be present. af;
the Withiesses are tpt here We cob set another dan “oO that Weocah dra
all the witnesses here, é
C. B. Ames Ih view of the faet that there are public recards
file with this Commission. uaider oath. showin whe the steek holdede
of the Oklahoria Gas & lee trie Co. and the Oklahoma Nataural GP
('o.. that are avathible fer this ventlermnan on ini | ody else Whe Wiilits
to see them, Which shows that there Ts Tha Comptiben ownership o
these two Corporatiotis >on additton te thraat we have here alate lis
of the stock bolders NY: Ie ss brats thee list . aT stock a itself qs i
the rial TiGWoaony thre Witt dren those ite public records, krvewn +
evervbods whe are posted,
Commissioner Humphrey Mr WeKay. do vou reeall whether,
hat these COMP AT TOs have reported sabitecuaddy
Mr. MeKav: Tam not sure whether the Oklahoma Natural Qos
Co. have reported every vear or not: T think the Ok advo Gas ¢
Electric Company have
Mr. Reiss: I will UTa DP peti tres that thr stock Wile Tratisterred
Chicago: didn't bring the “took hook hayt havea }ist vinieley thats at
December 31st. Tf necessary con ean examine that Jit,
Commissioner Humphrey: Mr. Ruth and Mr. Selby ean» cain
the records.
Mr. Selby: T would like to join in the demurrer te SOTO Parts «!
the answer. whielh in its nature ie confisine taken asa whole. and
that is the inability of the eas company te vippely thee adeqnat
supply of gas as the daw requires. The duty is clear as to a publ
utility: its mnabilite te comedy weth the requirements of the pauabh
m meeting the conditions. that is in He respect a defense: the las
In this state requires awsuiffierent sone side ey tbeate sripply of eas. and th
mere faet that ther bisave net been able tole soos ne defens
SH Commissioner Hinphrey We have an order te that effee
and af they are net dotne it, we will finn therm: let the de
murrer be over-ruled and proceed with the evidenes.
Mr. Selby Exeepted te. by Mr Selby,
Hexry M. Gravy. being duly <worn, testified as fellen
Q. State vour name’
A. Henry M. Grav.
Q. Your business”
A. Attorney.
(). Place of busine ac?
BE NP I OTA MAES AMR SNAP EMSS, ELIE ARAL EAL IDES ELIMI OS ELE REPEAL LS Dia BEL BO CLEA TONE ADE SELB IE ERE LIONS
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO, VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. 45
A. Oklahoma City.
Q. How long have Vou lived here?
A. Since Febroaary 109,
Q Did vou tive in thas City December of last year?
A. Yos sir.
Q. Are Vota constimer of natural gas?
A. Ta.
Q. Commaerenil or dotiestie tse ®
A. Domestic
Q. Tell the court the condition of the gas supplied as found by
buat your home coverme the period beginning December 7th and
muding December lth.
AL We had gas at all times, and a supply by which we could cook
weds, but net well: for heating purposes the supply was insufficient,
adit Was thipossible to Keep the house comfortable: we tried putting
ya suiall coal stove, and let the valves wide open all the time.
Q. Your gas jets were open? t
A. Yes. sir they were open full and: unobstructed,
(). Tell the court as to the COMMpArative tlow.
A. TP dont think we were vetting hearly as mates eas us We should
wiVe,
Qo Tn vour pudgraent what was the ditherenes’
AJ T base it principally upon the Range: we didn't have
chouch to cook with eoud,
Q. What would vou say as to the thow: would it be one-
carth. one halt or one erehth as deb as Vou ordinarily have ®
A. T coulda t miensture it
Q. Aste the quantity of heat. what would vou say?
A. We did not get as much as we ordinarily did with the valves
ull
q Ciive the court a ceneral dea
ALT couldiet say cit didivt seem as though we were vetting half
,
stiuely ids We tustucally do.
Q. Did vou make an vestigation during that period of time as
‘gas shortage in this city”
a Yes sir.
Q What are vou able to sav with reference to the couditions in the
tv generally with referenee to the flow of gas during that time.
AL Tt was reported to me ina great many instances in) various
sof town that there was no gas at all: that was not the condition
my place: reports came in to ime from the Eastern and Southern
wtof town that the flow was Very low. and in places they reported
vas out entirely L received those reports hy ‘phone, letter and
ilividuals, abd eve ry report was to the effeet that there Was not
tvh heat to permit ther houses to be comfortable.
Q In your investigation did you determine whether or not there
eho tlow of gas im places”
A. Yes str absolutely.
Q Are vou able at this time to state the average prevailing tem-
cerature,
A. Tt was about zero at all times,
1% OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. Vs. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
Q. | will ask if vou didn't get a report from Mr. Slaughter, th,
Weather burcau tian, showing that the teraperature ran along abou:
ten to 12 degrees above’
A. Lasked him fora report as to the temperature and he furnishe:
it.
SS Q. In vour investivation did vou determine whether ory
there was any suffering by consumers: if so to what extent’
A. There was a great deal of suffering by everybody imiore or es
especially in fatitlies where they had stall children and) sicknes
wnong the poor, there Were tunmerous complaints of siekiiess cop:
imge in: have heard of one or two eases of death due to isutheie:
heat,
Q. Twill ask vou if that is the report farnished by Mr. Slaughite
A. Yes sir.
Q. With that to refresh vour memory Towillask if vou ean stat
What was the prevailing temperature during those dates?
A. From this report from: December th to Dee. Tth. it ran fro
GY above to 6, a oYab Oe and |] above zero: that is the coldest during
those dave.
Q. That is from what date’
A. From the 7th to the [ith.
Q. Did vou Inatke investigation to detertuine with reference:
these dates, as to whether or not children who liad contracted colis
and pheumontia, having to rerun away from schools”
A. Yes sir, There was some reports of that kind
Q. Are vou able to state about what per cent of school ehildre
Were kept away from: schools on those dave due to disuthierent heat’
A. It was reported to me from: schools whieh use gas that ther
attendance had fallen off 256) ora ditthe better.
Q. You sav vou have lived here about ten vears”
A. Nearly that lone. Tenmie dere in hebruary, 1909,
Q. You have been in this city during December of these vears”
A. Yes sir. COMTENTLOUSTY
Q Are vou able to sav as to the precerding vears as to the ener.
teniperature that this city had during Decembers heretofore’
A. T don’t know as Peat say as te any particular Deceniber”
Q. TL inean generally”
Al Noo Tenn sav this: this was nothing anusual as cold) weathe
conditions for winter time im Oklahoma City: there haw
Sf been times when the thermonveter(.?) has gone below. zero
(). You tiean that the i have pres iotis Decembers that have
bees considerably colder”
A. Oh ves. that was notan unusual cold period during that tim
q). You savoit was not unusnally cold a= compared to other
Decembers ”
A. T think not
Q. As te the population of the city are vou able to say to the
court Whether or not it las imereased ?
A. Teould not sav about that. but it has increased,
Q. Have you any opinion as te the inerease during the period ¢
the last 12 months’
wa
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO, VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. 47
A. I would not be surprised if there has not been an increase of
agit to ten thousand: tiliabitants,
Q Do you know whether or not, within the last few years, there
vas beens any extension of the pipe lines of the gas company ?
A. My informiation is that there has been.
\. To what place?
A Rl Reno aud Nornian,
Q. Do vou know of Yukon tas heen furnished gas?
AJ No sino but Pothink it has: at would probably come in on the
dhe to Ie] Reno.
Mr. Reiss:
\. As to your Vestigation, us lo sickness : did vou make that
wvestigation personal, or did the information reach you some other
av?
Ao dam in the County Attorney's office. and those complaints
ne Tn tous.
Q. As to death’?
\. | don't know
Q As to school buildings, dont they all burn coal’? What other
«tool except the High Sehool uses gas”
AL The Culbertson School,
Q Did vou say extension of gas lias been made to Norman”
A. T have been told so.
‘) C,. B. Ames:
Q. Your infortiation as to lines which have been extended is not
fvour knowledge’
A. No sir,
Q. You speak of vour own knowledge as to the imerease in the
pilation of the City’?
A. That is miy estimate.
Q. That is about as aecurate as to your report with reference to
ve Weather conditions” You don’t knew what the weather condi-
ons have been except this past December, of vour own knowledge?
A. No.
QW Do vou know what the record shows as to the extent of the cold
eather ?
ALT haven't the records of December: T have the records as to
w periods,
Q. Your statements as te the weather during these previous De-
tubers ds of vour own estimate?
\. Yes sir. Toask- them to give me the ten day low period.
Q You could have secured accurate records of December if you
«l Wanted to”
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did vou know there was in file with this Commission reports
‘stockholders of these two companies?
A. Yes sir,
Q. Did you examine those records”?
Ce eee Poe SO PD RA RLS AIL EOT N PLS
4s ORLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
A. No sir,
Q. Newspaper reports are that vou had made Investigation ?
AL Ewas told by aman that made the transe ript ina former hey
ine — Billinesle Vv Co. of Chicago, show on their records that the
ewned Olfe of the stock in Ok: thom € ity of one COLL AUY anid Gu
of the pe
i). That was his observation
A. That was a iiat whe had transcript of the books, or a COPY oy)
them.
,
4] Commissioner Httaphrey: This is immaterial, as the re.
ords of the Commiatssiou are subject to their iMspection,
Mr. Reiss:
Q. Whi rt do Vou live how?
AL 1S W. loth st.
Q. Did Vou ever recelve il copy of “Clas Customers’ Hand Book"
AL TP couldn't sav: TP have seen them,
Q. TE will direet vour attention te pages Oand PL and ask vous
read them to the Conmmnuission ?
Mr. Ruth: On behalf of mivself and associates we object te read
Ing inte the record any ex parte statement made by the gas company
Commissioner Humphrey TP don’t think it is proper cross-exam:
nation
Mr. Reiss: We will introduce this Book as Defendant's Ex.
hibit “2.7
Q. You have seen this book”
A. TL have never read it: I “Up pose ] have seen it.
Commissioner Thamphrey: Have vou anything to take the plac
of the shortage of vas”
A. No si.
G. Ro. KUNbDERER,. being dulv sworn, testified as follows:
Mr. Selly:
(J. State vour name.
A. GR. Kunderer.
Q. What business are vou engaged in?
A. Restaurant.
2 You reside in Oklahoma City?
. Yes sir
Q Where is vour place of business located ?
A. On West Main Street.
Q. You are engaged there in supplying regular meals to patrons
of Oklahoma City ”
A. Yes sir.
Q. Will ask vou ifon the 7th to 14th days of December
92 inclusive if vou were engaged in business at that place?
A. Yes sir.
7
7
OKLA. NAT. GAS CU. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. 49
Q. Were vou a customer of natural gas at Oklahoma City”
A. Yes sir,
Q. You use natural gas for the purpose of cooking meal-?
A. Yes sir.
Q. | willask if, on the dates mentioned December Tth to bath in
dusive, Vou had an adequate supply of natural gas”
Al Tt seems tome that it was a litthe later on. the P5th. 7th or
Isth, that it got so low,
Q You remember the cold spell that we had here on the Sth cay
of December?
AL Yes sir,
Q. | will ask if that wasn’t on Friday”
A. Yes sir, We managed to cook on that dav.
Q. What occurred on the Saturday following”
A. We managed to get lineh,
Q. You closed up for the evening meal on Saturday ”
AL Yes sir, That was on the Sth TP think it was.
Q. You closed on the Sth day of December, the 2nd day of the
wold spell,
A. We closed on Saturday,
Q. Was it necessarily because vou didnt have a suthieient supply
of Pas,
A. Yes sir,
Q. Were vou dependent entirely on the gas supply for cooking
aid heating purposes?
A. Yes sir,
Q. Was it possible for you to substitute any other kind of fuel”
A. No sir.
Q. How many people would vou supply with food a day’
A. Tt varies, it will average 1,200 a day.
Q. That means 1.200 a day.
A. Yes sir,
3 Q. How long were vou required to remain closed”
A. Saturday evening and the following Monday evonine.
id all dav the next day, on Tuesday,
Q. During that time did vou have enough gas to heat vour place
f business”?
A. No sir.
Q. Do vou ordinarily keep open on Sunday?
A. No sir.
Q. You would have closed on Sunday anyway?
A. Yes sir.
Q. How long have you used gas a- fuel in your place of business?
A. Every since we have been ranning the business.
Q. Do you remember any other time that vou have been without
,
A. TE think once or twice on account of a broken pipe line,
_ Did you ever experience the same shortage of gas when there
was no break?
A. We had a shortage once before, but managed to get by.
4—312
50 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
Q. Are vou positive that it was impossible to get enough gas ty
cook with? |
A. We wouldn't have had sutlicient gas if we had staved on,
Q. Did vou make any personal inquiry or investigation among
other business men in Oklahoma City to ascertain as to the shortage’
AL No sit, itis just what people would say coming and going.
Q. Do vou use gas in your home?
A. T live in a hotel,
Q. All you know of general conditions is what you have heard?
A. Yes sir,
Q. What was the opinion expressed at that time with those whom
you talked”
A. Some seemed to — better supplied than others,
Q. How long have vou been in Oklahoma City”
A. Since 1902,
Q). During the course of vour residence here have vou seen th
temperature as low aso degrees above zero, in your past residence
here?
O4 A. Oh yes: TP don't know what months it) was, but the
Weather was as cold as that,
Q. In fact during your residence here you have seen the temper
ature much lower?
A. Yes sir.
Judge Ames: Possibly we can save time: we have already admitted
in our answer that there was a gas shortage.
Commissioner Humphrey: The Commission understands that
And might make a finding that there was a shortage of gas.
Cuas. Hl. Rerun, teing first duly sworn, testified as follows
Mr, Selby:
Q. State your name.
A. Chas. H. Ruth.
Q. Your residence.
A. Oklahoma City.
. Were you a resident of Oklahoma City during the month o
December, 1917”
A. I was.
Q. During the recent cold spell beginning December 7th and
extending to December I4th, were your premises connected with
the Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., mains for service of gas”?
A. They were.
Q. During that period did you make investigation to ascertain
whether you were receiving sufficient gas”
A. I did.
Q. Did you make investigation at that time to ascertain whether
or not your meter was registering the same with the low pressure of
gas as with ordinary pressure ?
A. I wouldn't say low pressure; there was pressure, but it wasn't
gas.
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. 51
Q. State to the court what investigation you made concerning the
action of the meter during that cold spell.
\. I made tive tests; one on the LOth, one on the 12th; one last
Thursday ; one last Sunday and one yesterday,
W) Q. Tell the court the result of your investigation as com-
pared to normal or low temperature.
A. L have 13 burners; to make an investigation | turned on each
burner full foree, and went into the cellar, after bundling myself up
on a cold day, and set with my wateh in omy hand in front of the
meter, taking the small dial as a gage | noted carefully on five
vecasions how long it would take the hand to make a complete revo-
lution, and discovered on each oceasion that the hand made a com-
plete revolution of that dial in exactly three minutes; 1 tried it five
diferent times; the gas was low. and Thad no heat in my house at
all: | used what is called a “simmer” on my gas range to measure
the height of the Hame; the frame of my gas range is one inch
from the top of the burner; during the cold spell there was just a
auall blue flame that come from that simmer, a half inch below the
wp of the range: in other words the blue flame was one-half inch
high; when it was 'y inch high T went to the cellar and took my
watch and set before the meter and discovered this hand making
wo complete revolutions in three minutes; 1 then lit my: stove had
asmall ring 114 inch in diameter, just a little blue flame that didn’t
wme up more than a's inch, then when the warm weather came
on last Sunday morning | went down there again and measured my
simmer, turned every stop-cock wide open to get wi equal test; in-
dead of the flame being a half inch below the top, it was 41. inches
above the stove: in other words there was about five inch flame. and
wery burner in the house was just in proportion to that. The meter
was running just as fast when T had no fire as it was when i had a
ive or five and a half inch flame; 1 set there before the meter with
wy wateh in my hand: | took three watches down there to see how
they compared.
Q. As to general conditions in the city during the period between
December 7th and 14th, 1917, do you know of your own personal
inowledge whether or not there was suffering occasioned by reason
df any gas shortage”
A. I didn’t investigate the homes; some came to my office
45 with colds so bad they could hardly speak above a whisper;
| just know from what I heard in conversation with others.
There are complaints from every part of the city represented by that
petition,
Q. Did you have occasion to investigate the conditions in- the
jusiness district”?
A. No sir.
Q. Did you have occasion to visit the court rooms?
A. Yes sir, I visited some of the court rooms in the court house ;
I visited Judge Donnell’s office; | found little or no heat in any of
them,
Judge Ames: Defendants have already admitted that there was a
gs shortage.
52 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO, Vs. THLE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL,
Q. How long have vou lived in Oklahoma City?
A. Nout 10 vears
(). Deo vou know Whether or not that cold spell in December js
unusual for December of past vears, of which you recall’?
A. No, T don't reeall of where it came quite so early; we have
had extremely cold weather though.
Q. SF above zero ts not extremely cold weather is it?
AO No. To remeniber when it was 6 below: [ remember at nine
oclock in the morning on ole occasion it was that cold: the reason
} recall that is because of a Mr. 0?) —-— was killed by the Friseo,
Mr. Reiss:
Q. Where do vou line”
A. 924 N. Shartel.
Q. Have vou ever received this book: “Gas Customers’ Hand
Book?”
A. T never did.
Q. Do vou know whether there is one at vour heme or not?
A. TE know there is et one at my home: there is only mivself
and wife at home, aud she refers every serap of paper that comes to
the house to me.
T. FP. DoNNELL, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
Mr. Selby:
97 Q. State vour name”
ALT. FL Donnell.
Q. What is your business, and place of residence?
A. Tam a justice of the Peace, T live at 435 W. 27th St.
Q. How long have vou heen a resident of Oklahoma City’?
A. 1S vears.
Q. You maintain a home and have a family?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Are vou a consumer of natural gas?
A. LT have been ever since it was peut In the CHL.
Q. At your home?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And at your office?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Were you acquainted during the period from December 7th to
l4th. 1917, as to the condition of gas here, and whether or not there
was a general shortage ’
Judge Ames: That is admitted.
Q. And as to any condition produced thereby, whe ther there was
any suffe ring and sickness occasioned by the gas shortage?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Tell the court what you learned, or heard, or know eoncern-
ing sickness and suffering caused by gas shortage”?
_— ACL Ie OTE bie By A OLRI GAAS LY RAS LEBEL IEN GILLI, 6 LLG LA TORRES 0 RNA NIE ELD ED TEBE Y EBs PIES IIA
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO, VS. THE STATE OF OXLA, ET AL. 5S
A. To begin with in my immediate family we had some severe
cases of cold bordering on pneumonia, caused by this cold spell of
Dec, 7th. ;
Q. Do you know of any relatives outside of your immediate
family that suffered or was sick on account of gas shortage’
A. | have two little grandsons, who live in another place that
had to Le brought to my house on account of Tt.
Q. Had you provided for other forms of heat”
A. Yes sir. TP had a combination coal and gas stove, which we
wed when we were lucky enough to get coals in addition to that we
had a kerosene lamp stove.
Q. You used one of them also”?
Ws A. Yes sir, during our sickness.
Q. Tell the court from your observation during that time
sto general conditions?
A. Mr. Selby, all T know is only from what is reported to me in
mv office.
Q. Are you able to say pretty general what the conditions were?
A. Yes sir, every: one that would come to court room expressed
themselves as having bad colds and seme cases of pmenmonia,
Q. State. if vou know, as to the supply of other fuel in the city
overing that period of time.
A. As to the wood proposition Pomade no inquiry, but there was
acoal shortage. there was not much te be had: T got a little and if
thadn't been for that T dont know what T would have done.
Q. You had difficulty in getting what vou did get?
A. Yes sir.
Q. There was a general shortage of coal at that time?
A. That was my information. |
Q. Are vou willing to sav whether or not the people in the eity
have depended largely on gas for domestic purposes”
A. We have, altogether, ves sir.
Q. With reference to business enterprises, do vou know whether
anot they had sufficient gas during that period ?
A. Nothing only what was told me: the cafes and. restaurants
wld me there was a gas shortage.
Q. As to manufacturing establishments, do vou know whether
they had a sufficient supply of gas?
A. Nothing only what was told me.
Commissioner Humphrey: The Commission might state that in-
dustrial users of gas were required to be disconnected. *
Judge Ames: We have admitted that there was a gas shortage.
Mr. Selby:
Q. With reference to previous Decembers during the vears that a}
won have lived here, what have vou found, as to veneral temper-
atures, existing generally?
A. Since the Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. has been sapply-
ing the city, my Judgment is that we have never had a De-
ember such an extreme cold spell as that.
aq
54 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL.
Q.) What Tam asking: during previous Decembers have ther
been cold spells during those months?
A. Oh ves, there have been cold spells.
Q. You are unable te say about previous Decembers as to hon
cold it got?
A. Yes sir, | know, generally we expeet a cold spell that) comes
the latter part of December and from the first of January on,
Q. That is the coldest weather?
Al Yes sir: our extreme cold weather comes the latter part of
January, | have seen on Christmas day re-vegetation,
Q. During this cold spell in) December, TOT. if there was gas
in the pipes were vou able te get any for heat at all’
A. We managed to get a bite to eat, my wife would get up abow
f30 or tive o'clock and cook sufficient to last during the day
during the day we would have a small blue fame and on two oe
three different occasions it went out entirely with the pipes wid
open,
Q When the tlame would eo out entirely, would the meter reg.
ister if the valves were open?
A. Yes. | was told by rT pluniber that the air would force the
meter to run, and Twas wondering if the gas company would charg
mie up with air, they have treated me very mice: and if it had not
been for siekness ino the famuly and the eXpctise 1 would net haw
tnade any complaint,
Q. Who is vour Doctor?
A. Dr. Looney.
Q. Do vou know of any other cases?
A. I was told of several.
Judge A Mies:
Q. What did you pay for coal during that cold) spell’
100 A. T think it was 810.00.
Q. Do vou know whether or net the cost of fuel was raised
In price”
A. Not tomy knowledge, Twas teld so: it looked like what [ gor
was very stuall compared to what TP paid for it.
Q. The general understanding was that the price of coal wa
raised,
A. T was told that: [telephoned to several different dealers, and
finally got the promise of some coal from Sehofield Co. : 1 phoned on
the Sth, on Saturday morning, early, and couldn't get any; Sche-
field received some late Saturday evening.
Mr. Reiss:
Q. You say the meter was actually running when there was n
flame whatever?
A. Yes sir. We had turned it on full blast, and couldn't even
smell gas.
Q. But the burner was open’
A. Yes sir.
ts os . Tapa RS LP ON AMA SG LANE AES SRD Aad ”
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL. 55
Mr. Ruth:
Q. Were vou a resident of this city last June or July’
A. Yes sir.
Q. Do vou recall that a committee was appointed by the Chamber
f Commerce, for the purpose of investigating this gas situation ?
A. Yes sir,
Q. Do vou remember the report made through the newspapers in
the city?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did they, er did they not say there would not be a shortage of
gas this winter?
Commissioner Humphrey: The Comission understands about
there being a committee appointed for that purpose.
Mr. Ruth: My object in examining the witness along this line was
to show to the Court that during the summer of last vear
1) there was a committee appointed by the Chamber of Com-
meree, consisting of Mr. Cottingham. Mr. Baird. and Mr.
Molinard. Mr. Molinard was a member of that Commitee: that a re-
port Was made to the citizens of Oklahoma City by that committee
that there would be no shortage of gas this winter: T want to show by
this witness that he relied on that report and made no provision for
other fuel.
W. R. Morrxarp being duly sworn. testified as follows:
By Mr. Ruth:
Q. State your name?
A. W. R. Molinard.
Q. What position if anv do vou occupy with the Oklahoma Gas
t Elect. Co.?
A. T am manager.
Q. Do vou occupy any position with the Oklahoma Natural Gas
'0.?
A. No sir.
. How long have you been manager of the Oklahoma Gas &
Elect. Co.?
A. Since it was incorporated in 1909.
Q. And you were such manager during the summer of 1917,
A. Yes sir.
Q. And you were manager from the 7th day of December 1917
until this date.
A. Yes sir.
Q. From whom does the Okla. Gas & Elec. Co. obtain its supply of i
natural gas?
A. The Oklahoma Natural Gas Co,
Q. Your company holds a franchise from this city under Ordi-
ance 2665,
A. I do not reeall the number, but we hold a franchise.
2 OT ae cater e Bieee e ee L oeee
18) OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
Q. The instrument T hand you is a copy of the franchise’
A. Yes sir.
Q. From whom do vou purchase vour gas for distribution in this
city’?
A. The arrangement we have with the Oklahoma Natur
12 (ias Co. is that we make all collections and we retary acer.
tain percentage of those collections, depending on whether»
Is for domestic or manufacturing consumption,
Q. You are only a collection ageneyv for the Oklahoma Natury’
(aas Co.”
(). Yes sir, locally.
Q.) Whe owns the matns and pipes in Oklahoma City?
A. The Oklahoma Gas & Elect. Co.
Q. Yet vou are simply agents of the Oklahoma Natural Ga. ¢
A. Yes sir.
Q. Tlave vou made any contract for the supplying of gas her
with anv other company than the Oklahoma Natural Gas Co
AL No.
Q. Under vour arrangement with them vou can onky distribus
such gas as they supply?
A. No there was a provision made
Mr Reiss: Wi object: let the contract spoak for qtself,
) I< that the contract vou have an Vour possession!
A. It is in the court room,
Q. In whose custody £
A. That particular contract is in Chicago, there are copies in thy
office: we have a copy here.
Q. Certified copies?
AO No, sir, T dont know,
Q. You don't know te vour own personal Knowledge that they an
COples:
\. We are morally certain that itis a copy.
Q. During this gas shortage did vou make any efforts. as manager.
of the company, to obtain any other supply of gas frome any other
source, save and except the Oklahoma Natural Gas Co.’
A. No sir.
Q. Did vou last samimer, or during the vear TYTT. as manager of
the Oklahoma Gas & Fleet. Co, attempt toomake anv other contract
With any other person. firms, or corporation, fer an addi:
1030 tional supply of gas, other than the Oklahoma Natural Gas
Co.
Mr. Reiss: Objected to,
Mr. Humphrey: Overruled.
Q. What kind of gas are vou supplying te Oklahoma City now,
artificial or natural gas,
A. Natural gas.
Q. Are vou familiar with the number of heat units contained in
natural gas.
1h 2 EPL ORR Pa IN TES NEN. STE TinT Ni SN
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL. oT
A. Ina general way, ves.
Q. Will vou tell the court whether or not the Oklahoma Natural
Gas Co. extracts gasoline from the Natural gas before delivering it to
vou?
A. | don't know anything about what arrangements are of the
Oklahoma Natural Gas Co.. in the field: T have no jurisdiction over
hat.
Q. Will vou say that vou do not know whether the Oklahoma
Natural Gas Co, extracts gasoline by condensation or by compression
from the natural gas hefore delivering it to vou?
A. The only knowledge T have of such oa plant is one located a
fv niles North of the eityv: T don't know whether the Oklahoma
Natural Gas Co., is on that line or not.
Q. Some one has a reduction plant there whereby gasoline is ex-
yacted from: natural gas”
A. Yes. by absorption process,
Q. That is for extracting gasoline from natural gas?
A, Yes sir,
Q. How long has the Oklahoma Gas & Elect. Co. been in lusiness
here?
A. Since 1909,
Q. You knew nothing about an extraction plant anywhere else?
A. No sir,
Judge Ames: As a matter of iiformation the Oklahoma Natural
Gias Co. does have extraction plants on its lines. lw whieh it
M4 extracts gasoline from natural gas before it reaches the con-
sumer.
Q. Are vou willing to admit as to the velutme of gasoline extracted
hom 1000 feet of was’
VW. From 1 6 to 1/18 of a gallon,
Q Are von willing toe admit that it reduces the quality of gas
vrmished to the consumer for heating purposes?
A. No,
Q. As manager of this company. that holds this franchise, from
tklahoma City, vou have never made any effort to supply Oklahoma
Otvowith gas. save and except such as supplied to vou by the Okla-
coma Natural Gas Co.”
A. No,
Q. Regardless of whether or net there was a shortage in sight vou
wade no effort to procure any other gas”
A. No. ;
Q. Which charter or franchise are vou operating under, Ordi-
nance 1119 or 665?
A. Evidently the latter one. the one of the late date,
Q. You are not furnishing at any time gas to the citizens of
‘kahoma as it comes out of the earth: and are net familiar with
ow the gas is handled before it is delivered to vou for distribution
‘the edge of the eity: whether the Oklahoma Natural Gas Co, has
ieeeiving and producing station,
A. No.
58 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL.
Q. You cannot of your own personal knowledge say whether o
not eperating under vour franchise for furnishing gas, vou are fip.
nishing gas in its natural forme as it comes from the earth’ |
A: No.
Q. And vou have made no effort to furnish the people with thy
character of gas’
A. What character of gas’?
Q. Natural gas as it comes from the earth’
105 A. We have Hiade no effort to control the business of thy
Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. as to whether they have ano.
traction plant or not. .
Q. That was none of vour concern”
A. No. ,
Q. You just distributed what was delivered te you?
A. Yes sir,
Q. And von charged for what was delivered?
A. Yes SIP.
Qo Are veu a member of a committee appotnted by the Chambe
of Commerce Jast June or July. for the purpose of investigating thi
gas shortage, that is to prevent a gas shortage?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Who are the members. other than vourself?
A. Mr. Crockett. Phil Baird. and one other min EP dow't recall dp.
name, there were tive altogether,
Q. Mr. Crockett is the man whe is largely interested in the Mor
rison gas field’
A. T understand so. ves sir.
Q. He was on that committee”
A. Yes sir,
Q. He has retired from law practice on the income of his oil hold
ings?
A. Yes.
Q. You made a report back to Oklahoma City”
A. We made a report back te the Chamber of Commerce.
Q. Have vou a copy of that report?
A. Not with me.
Q. You made it im writing’
A, No, the report that was sent out was leased entirely from a com:
munication from the Oklahenia Natural Gas Co. they gave us cer
tain information. which was later embodied in its entirety in the re
port; T was not secretary, and dent know how much writing was
done.
106 Q. Is it, or is it net a fact in that report vou assured th:
people that there would be an ample supply of gas this wine
ter, and that there would be ne shortage?
Mr. Reiss: We object: let the report speak for itself: it is en fil
with the Chamber of Commerce,
A. I don’t recall the verb-age of the letter: there were five or six
pages explaining what the conditions were and the best prediction
the Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. could make as to the future at that
ye ee . —
? HORM
OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET. AL. 59
ame. My recollection is that there was not a general assurance that
ere Would be no shortage. it was a prediction,
Q. That committee relied entirely upon the prediction of the
Oklahoma Natural Gas Co.
\. Yessir. Understand that report was verified hy others to sub-
gantiate their report.
Q. By whom”?
\. | don’t know,
Q. Then the comparison of the wells set forth in that report was
veritied ly the records of the Comission ?
\. | think so.
Q. Did vou not frequently as manager, last summer assure the
wople through the press that there would be an ample -upply of
sas this winter.
\. TL did not: T gave my best predictions based on the reports re-
vived from the field,
Q. That was only a prediction based on a report of one company?
A. Yes sir,
Q. As associate member of that Comission appointed lw the
Chamber of Commerce, Was a man that vou expected to buy gas from
Mr. Crockett ?
\. We didn’t know at that time.
Q. You know that the supply you received from the Oklahoma
Natural Gas Co, was net sufficient,
107 A. Yes sir.
Q). You knew what the population of Oklahema was?
A. Yes.
Q. You knew exactly what connections that you have?
A. Yes,
Q You knew how much gas was necessary to supply the citizens
‘Oklahoma City. for domestic purposes as well as manufacturing
purposes ?
A. 1 do not.
Q. You have a daily or monthly balance sheet, showing hew mu h
ve is furnished to Oklahoma City?
A. We have a monthly balance sheet,
Q. Have vou that for the month of November, 11.
\. No sir.
Q Can you state the amount vou received from the Oklahoma
Natural Gas Co. during the month of November, 1917,
A. Tecan state the amount we distributed according toe what the
veters registered, a certain percentage should be allowed for leakage.
Q. How do vou determine the amount of gas you receive from the
‘klahoma Natural Gas Co,?
A. They rely on our meter readers which are tabulated in our
fice and classified, and they have an auditor who goes through our
fice and checks up our records.
Q. Then vou have no meter registering the volume of gas before
‘comes into this city?
A. No sir.
60 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO, VS. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL.
Q Then the Okbiboma Natural Gas Co, relies pon the al
gas by vou as shown by what vour meter registers?
\. Yes sir,
dQ). Who stands the leakage Toss”
a We share it pre rata according to the y reentage of thy UThs
which we take
10s Commissioner Hamphrey We will stand adjourned tee
Velo ik.
Court comvenime at one Welock, lears further te TMM cl \|
Molinard.
Mr. Ruth: I understand Mr. Molinard desires to riake sore ¢
reetions in seme ot his testimony,
Mr. Molinard = 7 said that the Oklaleonmia Natural Coss Conipar
ond the Oklahotma Gas & Eleetrie Co. shares the Tos. due to leakag
pre rataz the fact i that the Oklahoma Natural Gas Coo stands the
entire loss. as we use the Oklahonmi: Gas & Eleetrie Co. meters as
hasis of measurements, and what dees net ge through the raeter
not recorded.
Q. Do vou know the pressure of gas that ts mecessary fo nisintan
in vour pipes to furnish an adequate supply of gas te the eitiza:
ef Oklahoma City
A. We beleve that toi meeessary te have a oa pound pressure a
avainst the town as we expres. ito im other words we brave te hay
that pressure in the main Tne up against the town. me order te eat
an adequate supply to the extreme ends of the distributing svste
in the city on a cold dav. and where the weather ts appre Tuite zer
flemperature, especially accompanted wieb high winds. in athe
words we try te keep oa pressare there stitficrent to meet the teeds o
hear as we can in this locality
Q. At any time during this cold spell between Peccmber eth a
Ith. did vour pressure go down below that?
A. Yes sir.
(). Will vou state the pressure on these Varreus dates?
A. Tt ois necessary for me te explain that the pressure Doraridels
every night in the mains. and that pressure is drawn oan se that
gradually drops. so that at is the tnistial condition that we righ
have the pressure on a cold dav. is that the pressure may he all the
is necessary at five o'clock in the morning. and vet by two or thn
weclock in the afternoon it may be inadequate.
Q. De vou knew hew it would be possible te keep th
100) pressure up te 80) pounds,
A. The Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. have ne control «
that pressure from the field up to the reeenane port,
Q. Then the Okla. Gas & Fleet, Co. acetone nnider its franchise
makes no effort te Keep that pressure up te SO) ponds. rine: th
Okla, Natural Gas Co. voluntarily Keep it np?
\. No sir, we have ne means ef controlling that,
Q. Have vou ever undertaken by any contract with am othe
company, to try to secure adequate gas to keep up that pressure:
—_ z aaa - a a a HE A ER ee
OKLA. NAT. GAS Co, Vs. THE STATE OF OKLA. ET AL, G1
\, No.
of) Never tricd to provide for it in any Manner’
£ NO.
Q. You rely wholly anid entirely on the Ok dadvonns Natural (tas
. Yes =Ir.
\. Tn case of an emerceney, what do vou do?
\ We have ne way to tect am emergeney, other than having
be pressure miuntained: at the receiving plant.
Qo Do vou Know from whem the Oklahoma Natural Gas Co, ob-
hans Its gas”
\ Noo PE know, that it owns a number of wells itself, and that it
ws a great deal of gas outside of its own wells. but [ don’t know
ho trom.
Q You know that there are gas wells in this state that vas of
hich are lot utilized”
4. Yes sir.
Q. Knowing that have vou made any effort to secure that gas”
\. No.
Q Relying entirely tipon one firm for furnishing it?
\. Yes sir,
Q. Lunderstand vou te say that your company takes the place of
tansfer company, or a delivery bey, you make the distribution
ad collect for it. and then receive a certain percentage of the re-
eipts ’
A. Yes sir.
iy Q. You know nothing about the heat units in the gas?
A. Yes, | have referred to a government report, made to
ve best of miy recollection. something less than a Vvear ago, where
vermnent representatives took samples of gas from eight different
cations in the state, and the result. of those tests were published in
witmphlet issued hy the Department of the Interior, Bureau ot
ines: those samples vary from $40 to 1.060 British Thermal Units
the cubic foot of gas analyzed,
Q. Then if gas contains that many British Thermal Units, and
sline is extracted from this gas, would you say the gas was im-
verished and had heat units taken from: it?
\. That may be true toa stall extent, but from what T learn from
sbnieal journals the percentages is almost negligible.
Q. But the gas by the extraction of guts is to some extent dena-
rized, impoverished to some extent”?
A. Yes sir.
Q. You recognize these reports vou have as practically correct ?
\. Yes sir.
QT have here Bulletin 88, Petroleum Technical journal, is-
ai by the Bureau of Mines, relative to condensors of gasoline taken
hm natural gas, published by Geo, Burrow, et al., if this was pre-
ved to you upon authority of the Bureau of Mines, and Depart-
satof the Dnterior. would vou adiiit that it was technically correct?
\. Yes sir.
& Twill ask you to read page 62, as to amount of gas taken from
b2 OKLA. NAT. GAS CO. VS. THE STATE OF OKLA, ET AL.
the Natural Gas in the Kiefer and Cdenn pool fields, this is int
form of tabulation : page 62.
A. Residue of gas 1315 BL TL.
Q). What is the specific gravity?
A. Tn the tirst case, 83 points, and the 2nd, 76 points.
Q. Looking to the extreme right of the page will vou read 1!
balance of that report’
A. Under column headed remarks: bs gal. per 1000 cubie fi
of vas: that is from the Glenn Pool in the State of Oklahoma. Thy
particular paragraph is headed Plant 2 . Kiefer: will s
i} that has nothing te do with vas coming to Oklahoma (Cy
under that schedule.
Q. The Gas is pretty much the same all over the state. is it ne
Some poor und some good.
A. Tam not familiar with eas asa whole.
Q. When vour pressure is reduced. is it, or is it not a faet that’
eas thins out?
A. The ratio or Volume for any samount of ils in Iwo stipes
eas from the standpoint of difference of pressure, T understand \
ure terested in.
Q. Yes.
A. We tuke a Volume of gas Jaroret ie 144 pounds, clevati
15 8.1. 1.000 ft. elevation 14.4 pounds: multiply that by 16 in ord:
to reduce it to ounces, and get 2304 ounces barometric or atme
pheric pressure: if you have a sample of gas of 2 ounces pressur
add that to the atmospheric pressure and get 2824 ounces: if y
have gas of 5 ounces pressure take 2824 and add 5 ounces, and y
vet 235.4 pounds, 282 to 285 pounds’ —its relative is pro rata; J
other words SS or 99%,
Q. What effect does that have on the rotation of the hind on
meter”?
A. A gas meter measures volumes, there is a litthe mechanism 4
it Which expands until it gets the bellows full, and when it gets fi.
by a mechanical means reverses and discharges,
Q. Then it will expand with air the same as with gas”
A. Yes sir,
Q. Therefore, if air is passing through the pipes and through tl
meter, the meter keeps working ?
A. Yes sir: as long as it has a pressure over atmosp
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.