The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-04-22
LAWYER HANDS LEMON
 UTILITIES BILL TO
 ClTYS BUSINESS MEN
tContinued from Page one)

Probably none were more surprised than the three men comprising the ma- jority of the special committee were
 when the true nature of the bill was
 explained by Judson, Chandler and | Whiton. So far as the subcommittee was concerned, while they were opposed to
 any effort to prevent stock watering, they were probably as much surprised as anybody else when they were in formed by MT. ,Judson that their ap- peal clause practically destroys their l The appeal clause is unique. It pro- vtdes that any public service corpora
 public service commission against it, ,l offering as a defense that it is not Il financially able to do the thing com
 plained of, it being further provided
 that, in considering the financial abiI-
 ity of any such corporation, invest
 ment in fictitious values shall not be
 considered.
 MT. Judson immediately explained
 that 1t is exceedingly doubtful if a
 court will undertake the discharge of
 the duties involved under an appeal
 upon such grounds. In fact. he said the Supreme court has already decided that the courts will not undertake the discharge of purely administrative de- 1 tails
 He pointed out the wide departure from the approved practice. which is EI to permit appeals only upon the ground that the order of the commission is
 unlawful, that is to say, not in ac- 1 cOrdance with the law of the constitu-
 ton.
 MT. Chandler and Mr whiton anpli- fed this objection by showing the diff
 nculty that would exist in 5deterInining g
 what portion of the investment of a
 company is water in the absence of
 restrictions against watering. MT.
 Wfiton also objected to the appeal lsclause, because it would furnish a
 .erea dy made defense,', and internlin- liable delays, and inf1ict- great ex- penses.
 The greater part of the discussion, 1 however, hinged upon the commissions in the bill.
 The chief of these was the exc1d- I sion of all provisions against stock B watering and manipulation of secur- 1 ities.
 i ATr Judson inquired of MT Vincent l if a provision preventing watering is I not fundamental of any public utfl- I ities bill.
 MT. Vincent replied that in his opin- l ion the people are interested in ser | vice more than in anything else Sen ator Manwaring then asserted that the bill would have more chance of pass l ing if no supervision of securities is I included, because it would not be so
 much opposed by the New Haven l MT. Judson replied: "If it is right 1 to prevent frenzied finance, don't eli- l rninate stock watering provision from I this bill because it will be opposed by
 the New Haven Railroad. The peo- l pie are sovereign in this state, not the l New Haven Railroad
 l MT. Chandler said that the bill with | out provision against stock water ing was like Hamlet, with Hamlet left 1 out.
 was the crux of the whole question. 1 In the debate that followed some sharp references were made to the presence of the tsblackhorse cavalry, l representing the public service cor
 porations in the last assembly, The attention of MT. Vincent was called by MT. Chandler to the grave l differences between the bill advocated by him, and the New York state law was framed by Governor Hughes. This discussion grew out of the fact that eured assistance of Governor Hughes. MT Chandler also directed MT. Vim cents attention to the legislation pro- posed by President Taft which, he said contains much more stringent su- pervision of stockwatering than any sbill ever offered to the Connecticut Legislature by MT. Chandler, or himself.
 Another strange onssion in the biH which brought much criticism of it, was it's failure to provide any pub 1icity features whatever. The passage of such bill as proposed by the spe- scial committee would cut off such re- ports from public service corporations requires no annual reports of corpor- ations, and the documents of the com mission are not made public docu- ments.
 The bill, in it's main features not a1- | ready referred to, provides a commis- sion of five members to be appointed
  are to receive a salary of s7 7,5o0 a year each, are to hold office for six years and to have an office at the state cap ital.
 Subject to the destructive power of the appeal clause, the bill confers pow CT to fix rates, supervise service and the like.
 < The bill was referred to the dfrec- tors of the association, who will act with the special committee in shaping the future of the proposed legislation. % of "a al tee are members of the board of di- rectors.
 Judson, Chandler and Whiton were evidently afraid that the effort of the association to offer independent legis- !ation would make division of forces likely to do damage to the movement to regulate public services.
 They strongly urged the abandOn-l ment of the proposed bill and the endorsement by the business men of Inc bill of 1907, prepared by thei special committee, named during the of Governor Rollin S. Woodruff.
 An amusing incident was the colo { 1uy between MT. Judson and B. K. who is at once counsel for he Board of Trade and the Law En- -orcement League
 MT. Nicholson occupied a place by Mr. Vincent and MT. Manwaring, and was evidently warmly in sympathy
 He was asked to speak upon the pill; being introduced as counsel for he Board Of Ira de.''
 When MT. Nicholson concluded his ] remarks favoring the bill, he had left most of those present in doubt as to ! whether he believed himself to be re- presenting the opinion of the board # Trade or his own. ,. Thereat MT. Judson put the ques- ion, point blank. 4 MT. Nicholson do you say thatI | what you have just said represents the 'pinion of the members of the Board # Tfade2''sF Mr Nicholson seemed to believe that Inoffi cially. his views were typical. TO which MT. Judson replied: q am E , member of the Board of Trade. You Lon't speak for me. It it were proper cIz +i.x,+