The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-05-14
Electric Light Interests Charge What They
 They Can Get

| uCy SdA 0CG Continued from First Page.)
 lighting power which they were doing.
 MT. Cooper told Judge Beers that the | Rowland Company felt it was within
 it's rights in the premises, having been
 so assured by counsel of eminence. Mr. Cooper had figures which show
 ed that in April of last year the com
 pany charged the Park department of
 this city Il cents per kilowat hour,
 engine houses and the city hall paid less, in each of the two latter cases 1 there having been a reduction made
 which made the net cost to the city | in the lowest instance 7-10 cents per l kilowat hour
 MT. Cooper made a shrewd and tell ] ing witness and his testimony was con- | cisely given. Efforts to tangle him | up in cross-examination only served to | make his case the more compelling. Evidently the committee took this view | for at one time while MT. Cooper was being interrogated by Judge Beers MT.
 Judson inquired what the judge was i endeavoring to do, and Senator Searls
 replied that it struck him that Judge
 the committee that the law should be
 repealed.
 | M. E. Brewster-Greene said the man.
 ufacturers of Bridgeport favored re- peal of the law. MT. Greene is secre-
 tary of the Manufacturers Association | of this city. Norman Allen of Hart
 ford appeared for the State Business
 Mems Association and argued for re- 1 peal, as did Lawyer Ralph O. Wells of Hartford. counsel for the latter asso-
 citation. MT. Wells contended that the
 existing statute was unconstitutional | and cited Supreme court decisions to
 uphold his contention.
 Secretary George Burns of the
 Bridgeport Business Mems Association
 also spoke in behalf of repeal for that l organization. F. A Leddy of New Ha-
 ven, with the Edward Malley Com
 pany, told how the law restricts that | concern which has its own lighting
 its own buildings because to do so it
 must cross another property while if | it moves it's lighting plant to another
 site across the street 1t cannot light | anything but its lighting plant. | Samuel H. Wheeler, owner of the
 Hotel Stratfield, in Bridgeport, de- | scribed himself as a violator of the law
 as he lights his premises from the hotel Brown was heard in behalf of the Bridgeport Board of Trade and the | Union Metallic Cartridge Company and Representatives Whiton of New Lon | don and Tomlinson of Danbury were
 also heard. The opposition to MT.
 Judson's substitute will be heard next | Wednesday.
 Attorney Warehouse, for the inter-
 ests. contended that the substitute bill offered by Senator Judson which pre- | cludes the repeal of the existing statute should not be considered as 1t was in the nature Of new business and there fore not properly before the committee. The Judiciary committee told MT
 Warehouse that they would let him
 submit brief upon that point which | would be considered.
 | Senator Judson told the committee | that his clients embraced large and Il varied interests in Bridgeport princi-
 pally business houses and manufactur- | ing concerns.
 Three of his clients he said paid the | city of Bridgeport three times the
 amouSt in taxes that the electric light l although the obnoxious statute was | passed in 1893 no effort had ever been made to invoke any prosecutions under
 it and 1t was chiefly rellef upon TOT | club to swing over the heads of nnanu' lecturers and others who sought to
 furnish their own lighting.
 MT. Judson said there were in
 Bridgeport alone 57 private concerns | that he knew of that owned their own l lighting plants. He then related the
 attempt of the local electric lighting | interests to induce the Rowland com | pany not to sell its surplus product to | Thomas P. Taylor. by agreeing to let | it have all the current 1t required for
 less than it had paid for years. | Senator Judson said he concluded 1 that the only reason why the electric | light people had come to the present
 Legislature with the three bills which I | cause they realized that they could not
 invoke the operation of the law under
 the statute. because it contained no | remedy.
 | He next told of the offer of the coun- | sel of the company to withdraw the | objectionable bills providing no att tempt was made to interfere with the | existing statute, but this proposition was refused because those who are opposed to the statute believed there
 was no ground for compromise and the
 overtures were rejected.
 MT. Judson pointed out that the vast commercial and manufacturing inter- ests he represented did not seek to invade any of the rights of the cleo | tric interests by asking for the use of | public highways; they simply sought | the privileges of furnishing themselves with electricity and selling such sur plus as they may have to their neigh .bors in the same block without in any way trespassing upon the public thor | oughfares.
 There was no question in his mind he said that the objectionable statute
 was sneaked through the general as- | sembly and it's existence was little
 known of until the threats to enforce it were made. MT. Judson made tell poration in Bridgeport had a sliding | scare charging one class of consumers more than it was willing to charge oth- | CTS, which in itself he said, was vio- lation of it's charter. He closed by | saying their method of operation was | to get as much as they could from | some customers, taking what they | could get from other customers.