New-York tribune., 1907-01-03
THE GOVERNORS MESSAGE.

Governor Hughess first message confirms the
universal expectation that he would begin his
administration an advocate of important
forms. The Governor finds the greatest needs
of the state to-day TO be the amendment of the
election laws and the amendment of the laws
respecting the regulation of public service cor
porations, both in the light of experience. He
suggests no radical departure from the princi-
pies already followed in the state government.
He would merely bring the laws up to date.
He would make the system adequate TO the COM
plicated needs of the time. Where it has been
shown that the laws have failed to produce the
results hoped for from them he would profit by
the teachings of experience to make the laws
effective.
We have already system for the regulation
of the public service corporations of the state,
but modern problems have OvertaXed the wis
don. and foresight of legislators of a decade or
so ago There is almost unanimous agreement
that increased powers are necessary TO enable
anv commission regulating public service cor
porations to compel them To render properly the
public services for which they were created.
The State Railroad Commission as kn effective
instrument of state government has failed from
its own poweressness II has no authority to
enforce It's recommendations 1t has smade rec
concentrations, for instance which would have
improved local transit conditions but they have
sit companies. Such n condition IS intolerable.
Mr.. Hughes grasps the principle that the pub
lie service corporations present one problem and
that there is no occasion for duplication Of
commissions in the same territory. New York
has now a State Railroad Commission and
State Commission of Gas and Electricity. He
would abolish both and substitute single pub
lie service corporation commission. having the
powers of the two present commissions and such
additional powers would make il an effective
instrument of government. Its directions to
corporations should he mandatory, and the viQ-
lation of them should be punishable Thus he
takes a leaf from the experience Of the United
States regarding the Interstate Commerce Com
mission The Governor is clearly right In urg-
ing that the proposed commission should be paid
by the public. not by the corporations whose
activities 1t would supervise.
AS nearly half OF the population of the state
is in New York City. and as the congestion Of
people here presents distinct problems of tre-
mendous magnitude, the Governor would create
second public service commission to regulate
public service corporations in the exercise OF
their local functions within the metropolitan
district Thus the present conflict of authority
and responsibility which exists between the
State Railroad Commission and the Rapid Tran
sit Commission would be ended and local body
In touch with local needs and conditions would
have ample authority 10 deal with the railroad,
traction and lighting corporations Of this city.
The present Rapid Transit Commission would
have TO be abolished not because It has not done
excellent service to the community, but because
its organization and powers are inadequate to
fhe needs of the hour. The new commission
would have not merely the power which the
Rapid Transit Commission now has Of granting
new franchises and supervising roads operating
under those franchises in the public interest.
but similar power to regulate all the roads in
the metropolitan district already existing, and.
in addition, supervisory authority over the light
ing corporations. The present system Of reg
ulation has proved inadequate, Governor
Hughes would make it adequate. We feel that
IT would be in the public interest if some. at
least. of the present Rapid Transit Board could
be persuaded TO serve on that new commission.
Their long familiarity with the transit prob
lens of the city and the disnterested public
spirit with which they have uniformly acted
should be retained in the city's service
There is room for an honest difference of
opinion about the wisdom Of making contests
over the results Of elections easy. The position
has been held by many that it Is better TO
make the count Of election officers practically
final so as to discourage frivolous contests and
not to have the incumbency of offices In dis
pute after the legal period for their occupa-
ton begins. The last mayoralty election in
this city, however raises the question whether
the security thus gained is substantial. The
Tribune has expressed regret that the decision
of the court in regard to that contest construed
the law narrowly and barred q court review.
The recount bill last year met with consider
able criticism because, as was pointed out Mr..
Hearst had a proper legal remedy by quo
qCarrdnto and because there was fear OF in
PRODUCING into elections the confusion of long
litigation. Mr.. Hearst's application for writ
Of quo 1CarrGntO failed because he did not
make, and perhaps did not wish to make
prin1G facie case for relief. The present At
torney General has invited him to apply again.
and thus q settlement of this election dispute
may be procured without resort to legislation.
Perhaps such a general law as Mr.. Hughes
suggests, making election returns renewable
by the courts would be best but the courts
should exercise their discretion strictly and bar
recounts asked simply because Of the closeness
of an election and in the mere hope of finding
Irregularities.
needed, as the practice of multiple independent
nominations is a crying abuse. Whether it
should go so far to substitute the so-called
Massachusetts ballot is an open question. for,
after all, the ballot is made for the people
not the people for the ballot Direct primary
nominations might advantageously be tested in
the way the Governor suggests
|
INADEQUATE WATERMAyNS