The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-04-30
so CALLED APPEAL CLAUSE
 OF PUBLIC UTILITIES BILL MAY ENTIRELY DESTROY IT
Appeal Provision of Measure and Omissions Make it Bad
 Bill.

The Farmer prints herewith let ter from samuel D. Vincent, relative ities bill, to which it invites the at tention of all it's readers.
 That human nature which causes a child to make faces at the parent who has spanked it, is sufficient to account for the sco1ding which Mr. Vincent gives the Farmer, before he proceeds to the defense of his bill. or the scolding may be passed without further comment.
 The Farmer, sharing the opinion Of States Attorney Judson, and other men who have made a study of the reg u1ation of public corporations, has de- c1ared the appeal clause perhaps un- constitutional, and certainly unusual and dangerous.
 AS his triumphant reply to all of this criticism MT. Vincent puts three knows about tour appeal clause" and if there is anybody in the state who knows more about the law than Judge Baldwin and if the Farmer will an- swer those two questions.
 As to what it knows about the ap- peal clause, modesty requires the of it's readers. AS to whether there is anybody i'll the state that knows more about the law than Judge Bald win, an answer, to which Judge Bald win himself will not except, must be given in the affirma tive.
 The supreme court knows more about the law than Judge Baldwin does, because the supreme court fn- ally declares the law.
 And it so happens that upon the very question involved in this case the Supreme Court, was always at var lance with the court.
 In the appeal of the Norwalk Street Railway Company, which will be found in the Sixty-ninth of Connecticut, the court declares that it will not under take legislative functions, even when imposed by the legislature. that it Constitution, entirely to judicial func- tions. To this opinion Judge Baldwin wrote a learned exception.
 When MT. Judson said that, in his opinion the appeal clause may be un- constitutional, he referred to this very case, and no doubt had in mind that the appeal, in it's present form, may performance of duties that are in their nature legislative and not Judicial.
 Now if Judge Baldwin did not sue ceed in getting the Supreme court to agree with him in this important matter, when he was member of the. court, how can assurance be given that it will agree with him now that he is not a. member?
 That lawyers disagree as to the con- stitutiona1ity of the clause there can be no doubt. It is in that twilight Why insert in the law unnecessarily what may jeopardize it, especially when the right given is a right not conferred upon the ordinary 1itigant.
 It is fair to Judge Baldwin to say that he has not given his approval to the appeal clause beyond saying that it is probably constitutional and that it will probably accomplish what it's framers want it to.'' He has not said that it is a good thing to put in the bill.
 A lawyer may advise a landlord that he has the legal right to set a widow with ten children, all sick, up- on the sidewalk in the middle of win- i ter for non-payrnent of rent. But l unless he says that it ought to be done, 1 he should not be accused of approving zhe eviction under those circumstances. 1
 The Farmer cannot admit that it has 1 said that the tentative bill contains l no provisions relative to rate making. 1 fully he will see that the renla rks he | undoubtedly has in mind refer purely l to a statement of his own, made by | aim while he was opposing the adrnis- l sion to the bill of provisions prevent | ng stockwatering.
 MT. Vincent also says that the law l yers he consulted did not dominate l he bill. But somebody doninted it to l he extent of causing the e1iminati | If the usual and abso1utel necessary for audit, publicity and pre- zention of stock watering. Judge | Baldwin has apparently not been ask Governor Hughes, who is a. iurist as earned as Judge Baldwin, did not l. unit them from his bill, and MT. Vim ,ent says that he had Governor 1 Hughes bill before hiTfl.
 1