The morning journal-courier., 1908-02-04
PUBLIC UTILITIES CONTROL.

monopolies that sooner or later they would have to come under more rig i'd and scientific regulation and control than can possibly be exerted by the railroad commission. It never entered the mind of any thoughtful person that such a recognition of those com panies meant the continuance of the old relationship. Nor, on the other hand, was 1t ever supposed that the State would suddenly become fussy and fidgety in It's sense of responsibili- ty. All that anyone can desire is that having granted such enormous rights and privileges the State shali s.c that they inure to the welfare of tEe people and are not misused for the selfish benefit of officials and stockholders ln other words, it has been too well dem onstrated within the past few years that the best of men will bear watch ing when given great power.
 From the Connecticut point of View the Massachusetts attitude tovprds public service corporations is the wrong and fallacious at,itu1s. That State undertakes to do an excessive amount of bossing without yielding correspondirg liberty to its corpora tions. Strict oversight is only consist ent with the maximum amount of con fidence reposed in the institutions reg ulated By overlooking that principle of government Massachusetts long ago lost control of the Boston and Albany, to it's lively regret, and only recently saw the control of the Boston and Maine pass into the hands of the New Haven Railroad Company. While 1t is of course conceivable that those two railroad corporations would have con- tinued to seek protection under the government of that State had it been willing to trust their investors and
 
 managers with a more liberal control of their own properties. and while probably on that account the present controversy would never have been provoked, it was not conceivable that they should let their money and ca pacity remain where interference with out compensation was the rule of the commonwealth The Connecticut cor porations are more content, on the one hand, and on the other, more eager to grow and expand because of the liberal policy of the State towards them. If any one thing or two have clearly been demonstrated they are these: In the first place, people will no invest their money when the use of it is interfered with recklessly or without practical business judgment In the second place, the people will not con cedc extraordinary rights and privi- ltkCS 'N1tiOul tA'iti-lliS ttiN poNFl VI intelligent control and regulation, which belongs to them in their capa- city as creators of all corporate ex- istence.
 The General Assembly of Connecti- cut last winter created commission under advice of Governor Woodruff tc inquire into public utilities legislation in other States and 10 recommend such original legislation as might ap- pear reasonable and useful. The lam gliago of the act Is purposely obscure There is no reason to believe that the legislature and the corporations fa- vored any step which would result in the organization of public utilities commission with power to inquire in- to the conduct of the public service companies and to regulate their right to issue stocks and bonds Had it not been for the persistence of the gover- nor the proposal would never have seen the light of day. That body did, however. enact a law raising a com mission of inquiry, but clothed it with such doubtful powers that it can if if wishes dodge the whole question. On the other hand, the commission of in- auiry can, if fl chooses. do what the corrupt practices commission did seize the authority to inquire, investi- gate and report in an aggressive man. ner. It is understood that it is already inuuirins among the corporations for in the right direction. It is also under stood that later the commission vil hold a public hearing at Hartford and possibly at ether convenient centers oi population It certainly should do so and there should be no one more fin. terested in having this done than tht public service corporations themselves They will not gain, they will lose bl encourag:ng a delay in this matter The principle of natural monopoly vii not. should rot be tolerated in the ab- sence of ar effective scheme nf ~egu- Iation and control. The alternative l. the Massachusetts situation, which |