The Portland daily press., 1897-03-16
Corporations and Exclusive Privileges.
To the Editor Of the Press:

wi PoTdtAOhS anu GXClusAtC 4
To the Editor Of the Press:
In your editorial of this morning, IN
stead of replying to my argument IN the
Deering Water Company case, you set
up STRAW man." and then proceeh,
with much ingenuity, to sdemolish him.
You begin as follows:
1T is true that corporations organized
for certain purpose ought to be ACCORDED
Observation-Disclosures but thesreason given
by Mr.. Payson to Justify thess exclusl We
priivileges.are not sound, or il sound'
then every corporation, partnership and
individual, has the. same right to them
which. the corporations that enjoy them
have.''
You seem to misapprehend entlrey
the scope of my argument ! did not
attempt to give any reason for justifylng
exclusive privileges" to any corporation
for did not claim that any corporation
shouldshave them. What l claim is, that
it has been the policy of this stare TO
give fair and reasonable proteotlon 60
existing quasi-publio corporations-nos
to give them Exclusive rights. The
law of 1895 does not confer Exclusive
privileges" upon any corporations or IN
dividuals but the effect of the .so-called
restrictive clause In these laws is simply
to provide, that where gas or electrlc
light company is already supplying
city or town with gas or eiactrlolty,
new corporation shall not come In, With
full rights Of eminent domain, ana pos
sibly destroy the value of the existing
plant, until the need of such new com.
pany has been Investigated by some IN
dependent tribunal.
This tribunal may be either Board OF
Com nl1sS1Oners appointed ZOE tnis pur-
pose, or, If no such Board OF commits
sioners exist, a committee OF the ,leglsla-
ture.
Now the question before the legislature
is not whether the entire law OF 1896
should be repealed but whether this one
so-called restrictive clause should be, and
the balance Of the law retained.
Much of Jour argument seems 70 be IN
support of the repeal of the tenure law,
and, in this, I should not materially
differ from you, as | question very much
the wisdom, on the part OF the State, OF
according to quasi-public corporations
under general laws, full rights of emil
nent domain. II you have carefully ex-
amined this legislation of 1895 do you
believe in Tire repeal of the so-called re-
strictive provision and the retaining Of
the balance of the laws
Your argument that there is equally
sound reason for protecting all corpora
tions, partnerships and individuals, as
for protecting quasi public corpo rat1ons,
does not seem to be In accord with your
usual good Judgment about public qnes-
made in good faith, let me suggest the
following rs reasons why quasi-public
corporation should have a fair and reason
able protection from the legislature.
while business partnerships and indiyid-
uals should not have such protection.
First. Quasi-public corporations have
certain duties to the public which the
public have right to demand shall ne
fairly performed. The public, therefore,
have an interest In and claim upon
these companies which they do not have
in and upon business partnership.
Second. Quasi-public corporations ca
under the right of eminent do main, ia ke
private property for their cor
porate purposes. while business
partnerships and individuals have
no such right. This right of
eminent uOuldln IL Ouiy &FduGeu w cOr-
porations organized for purposes which,
if carried out. will be OF some benefit to
the public. Ths right should, therefore,
bsycarefully guarded, and If once granted
should be SO protected thu public as
we'll as private interests vii not be in
jured.
Third. Quasi-pu blic corporations are
all subject to the control of the legisla-
uure. Chapter 10, Section % of the Re-
vised Statutes reads as follows:
ga OTIS of incorporation passed since
March II. 1881, may be amended, altered
Or repealed by the legislature, as If
express provision therefor were made in
thom, unless they contain an express
limitation; but this section shall not de-
prive the courts of any power which
they have at common law over the COR
poration or its officers -
The language of this Statute would In
dictate that it applied only to COMPUTATIONS
specially chartered by the legislature I;
but the Supreme Court of this State
have held that it equally .applies to COR
porations organized under general laws.
The quality of service rendered, and
the rates charged by these corporations
can, therefore, at any time be investi-
gated by the legislature, and the public
protected against extortion and poor
service, for, upon good cause being
~
Amended as was necessary, or the charter
itself taken away. There is no such con-
troll over the business of partnerships and
individuals.
Other reasons might be given, but the
above ere sufficient.
You say that I have overlooked the
true reason for granting certain corpora
tions exclusive privileges" and that sit
ia OH public grounds, not private, that
such privileges are justifiable. +"
You must bear in mind that when
made my argument, L was addressing a
Committee. OF the Legislature upon par
ticular case which they had just heard
and was stating certain reasons for not
repeating this restrictive provision. I did
not, for moment, argue to the Commit
tee that any corporation should be given
exclusive privileges" and while your
above-quoted reason is perfectly legiti-
mate one upon the question upon which
you are TALKING, it is not very pertinent
to the question upon which L was talk
ing. Indeed, through much of your reply
TO my argument, you havs been talking
about something that l was not talking
about. In conclusion let me say that !
did not expect to get into any public con-
troversy over this matter, and do not now
mean to dOsO.