The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-05-19
Pretensions of Electric Monopoly Are Shattered
 In Merciless Inquisition
(Continued from First Page.)

Continued from First Page.) was a dangerous business. Many fires were caused by electric wiring ard | more would be caused if the handling | of the fluid became unrestricted. Judge Beers appealed to the state to protect its children, the electric light | companies. He called George Preece, | this city. who testified that the How | land company, had a capacity of 2.S00 amperes while it required but 1,030. | This was immediately disputed by A. | M. Cooper of the Rowland company who said the requirement. for the How | land and Sanford buildings alone was 1900 amperes-
 Like solicitous father, coming to | the aid of his erring son. Judge Beers l appealed for the electric light com | panies and especially. for the Bridge | port company. The Bridgeport com pany, for example had spent $500. .00q | in underground conduits and work l during the past two years. including | the work now under way. It had a great investment and should be safe | guarded in that investment by the state.
 | And then, with tears in his voice. | Judge Beers solemnly paraded before | the committee those objects of his | tender regard: the widows and orphans. | It was the first time they have been
 brought into play during this session | of the legislature and they were greet | ed with a smile. Their savings were | invested in the electric light com | panies. said the judge. and it would | be a shame to imperil them by allow | ing anybody to sell electricity in com | petition with the regularly chartered companies.
 | He claimed that rates in Connecticut 1 were lower than in Massachusetts. | the rate in the latter state. New Ha- 1 ven and Bridgeport and Hartford paid less than any city in Massachusetts 1 The Bridgeport company represented [ | large investment of capital and under careful management was able to con
 duct it's business and pay a modest
 dividend of per cent. year. | And then. with glow of honest | pride upon his face, a pride in the | child he was appealing for. Judge Beers yielded to Attorney Judson who
 made the closing argument in favor
 of the repeal of the bill. masterly effort it was- The claims of Judge Beers and Attorney Morehouse were | dissected without mercy The electric
 light companies were held up as crea
 tions of the state that were not satis- | fled to do business in the regular way. | but who asked for the stifling of all | competition.
 First of all,'' said Attorney Judson, 'T want to congratulate MT. More
 house upon his acrobatic skill At the | first hearing he protested on behalf of 1 the electric light companies. the powe- | companies. the railroad company, and | other mighty corporations against this | proposed repeal which would do inn l mense harm to their interests. To-day | he appears as the champion of the
 common people who would suffer. he
 claims. if the companies are interf'xed with.
 '.He has boldly thrown overheard his | first contention that the safety of the
 people demands the retention of this law. Instead he admits that all he
 asks is a right for the companies to | retain all their present profits and | preserve their dividends intact. He
 asks this committee to stamp out all
 competition. But the law cannot be | sustained on any such grounds. The
 and provide against any invasion of | the public rights. A man can legally
 produce any article of manufacture. | just as legally as he can raise and sell | a crop of potatoes.
 There are no 1iml ta tlOnS on the
 making and selling of gas or of pow> | CT. Why should electricity be singled out one thing that an individual cannot produce and market? Why, in deed, except to protect the companies | in their pursuit of gain?
 'As far as safety is concerned. cleo | tricity is safer than gas. The Massa- chusetts report for last year shows 11S fatal accidents due to the making and selling of gas and but F due to the manufacture and handling of electric ity. There is no special danger in the producing and marketing of electric ity. These figures show it. There is further proof, and here it is: Private plants manufacture electric ity under a direct current and with a low voltage. This current is not dangerous. It is the alternating cur
 rent with it's high voltage that is dan
 gerous. And that is not produced in the private plants. The big public companies refuse to supply direct cur
 rent except in a limited area. Here is letter from the Bridgeport Vehicle Company on the subject They ap- piled to the Bridgeport company for direct current and were told they could not have it, that it was not supplied west of Park Ave.
 ''No, it is not because of danger to the public but because of danger to their own purses, that these gentle men oppose repeal. They called one expert and called more, when he stumbled. And here is a roomful of them. Why this change of front? He admitted that it was to protect the