The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1909-07-29
AN ABLE ADDRESS.


WAS able, sound and logical. 1t is
strong argument against the pubic
utility law and government by coinihis-
sion. and we believe that If the league
cave the widest possible publicity to
Mr.. Uoucen's address it would bear
good fruit. The following is the ad-
dress in full and we recommend care
full perusal of it:
HAS THE PUBLIC UTILITY LAW BEEN
A BENEFIT TO THE MUNICiPALITIES
OF THE STATE?
The question has often been asked
WHY was the public utility law en-
acted? 1t was never political issue; II
never was discussed or advocated IN any
political campaign. 1t sprang full
fedged from the bosom of thelegislature
without the people of the state having
made any demand for such an enact
ment The law is comprehensive ana al
embracing, 1t completely subverted the
control which the cities had OF their own
servants within their gates and delegated
that control to commission located at
Madison. The enactment OF the puDllc
utility law came not as demand trolh
the people, but as product of the re-
form spasm which has been upon this
state for few wears past. The enact
ment of the law placing the control OF
the railroads in the hands OF the raii-
road commission came as a result OF
nolitjcal contest and as the demand OF
the people of the state. The railway law
had proven itself of benefit to the people
of the state and no doubt some budding
statesman, anxious to impress the lact
of his existence upon the people,
succeeded in having the public utihty
law drafted and enacted as reform
measure. OF late there has been al
together too much craftsmanship based
upon the theory that what is is wrong
Therefore call something reform and
it becomes an objectionable political SIN
to oppose il. In this state of the political
life we may find the reason why the
public utility law WIS passed.
In what say. do not mean to IN
auy wise attack the personnel Of the rail-
road commission, but the theory OF the
law and its practical working ls prop
er subject for discussion. Heretofore
no one has been omnipotent without
being omniscieut These two 1ttrlhutes
are coordinate. The existence OF one Is
essential to the proper exercise OF the
other. Under the public utility law,
however, the railroad commission has
been made omnipotent without being
endowed with the attribute OF omnl-
science. 1t is therefore fair to say that
the commission is rot in position to
carry out the theories of the law under
which it works The theory Of the law
is beautiful and attractive. 1t says that
every public utility shall furnish rea'
sonably adequate service at reasonable
and lust charge and every inadequate ser
vice and every unjust or unreasonable
charge is prohibited and the commission
is empowered to determine the reason
able service and the reasonable charge
and to enforce the mandate Of this law
In the case of the 500 Railroad Company
against the Railroad Commission, 13t
Wis. Jag, the Supreme Court discussing
similar provisions in the railroad com
mission law by Justice Ilmlln, says
This law establishes and thencefortt
assumes the existence of rates, charges
classlfcations and services discoverablt
by investigation, but andisclosed, which
are exactly reasonable and just 1t com
mits to the railroad commission the duty
to ascertain and disclose that particular
rate, charge classification or service
The law intends that there is only one
rate. charge or service that is reasonable
and Just. The theory of thi,
law is to delegate to the commission the
power to ascertain facts and to make
more administrative regulations" Ir
the case cited, the plaintiff maintained
that the duties required OF the railroad
commission under the law We're legis
Iative and therefore could not be delegat
ed. The Supreme Court, however sus
tanned the law on the doctrine that the
law intends that there is only one rate,
charge or service that is reasonable anC
lust. The enunciation by the Legislature
that all rates and services should bt
reasonable and Just and all unreasonable
rates and inadequate service were de
clared unlawful was legislation bring
ing into existence that rate and service
at that just and reasonable point ant
the duty of the commission was merel,
to discover and announce that rate o.
service. Therefore | say, the commits
sion is not equipped to do its duty for i
il not endowed with omniscience, ant
the opinion of tho Supreme Court il
that case fully illustrates the point.
The public utility law also declare
that the rates and services ordered an,
fixed by the commission shall be in fore
and shall be prtnta tacje lawful unit
found otherwise in an action brough
for that purpose, and says that in sucl
action the person contesting the orde
of the commission shall have the burdel
of proof ito show by clear and satisfac