Chicago

stances conected with the recent negotiations between the companies and the city officials, and to report the &dquo;result of their investigation with such remedial measures as it may deem proper.&dquo; After an investigation, conducted with entire fairness and marked ability, the committee reported back to the legislature on April 29, 1905. Evidence brought out by the committee showed clearly that the companies holding a monoply, which extended over the entire city, were largely over-capitalized. Referring to the Consolidated Gas Company, .the committee said: &dquo;The fact that the company, by rendering competition impossible, has been able to earn large dividends does not justify it in adding to the value of its plant an additonal amount for good-will or earning capacity and thereby justify a continuance of excessive charges. If this were permitted it would be able to secure in perpetuity the maintenance of exorbitant rates. Extortion for a series of years would be the sufficient excuse for further extortion. Indeed, there would seem to be no escape from the conclusion that successful imposition upon the public would warrant increased charges upon the ground of enhanced good-will. The company is entitled to a fair return upon its capital actually invested, but it is not entitled to capitalize its grip upon the public.&dquo; The committee recommended that the price of gas for the boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn and part of the Bronx be fixed at a maximum of