Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-07-06


tlcularly significant. coming as it does at
an important election.
Your second question is as follows:
IF a special session of the Legislature
Is called will you vote In favor Of con-
ferring a rate-making power upon the
Public Utilities Commission, with adequate
power of enforcement?"
this subject was before the last Leeisia-
ture for consideration. and when the Dem
ocratic minority were endeavoring to
make political capital out of an attempt
r~ate-making powers we took the position
that the bill which was passed by the
Legislature, and signed by the Governor,
delegated to the Railroad Commission ali
the powers which the Legislature nos
sessed as 10 railroad control, except that
OF liking a maximum rate per mile,
We insisted that the Legislature did not
awe the right to compel a railroad COM
pany to make an exception in the case
or communication, ten-trip, family tickets.
quarterly and yearly tickets. &c, which
ticular class in the community, and
to carry the members of that class
at a less sum thar it has a right
to charge those who are not mem
having the power in itselkto do this thing.
could not possibly delegate that power to
a commission created by. the Legislature.
We insisted that the limit of the power
of the Legislature, with respect to the
fixing of rates, was the right to Ak a
maximum rate per mile. which could be
enjoyed by everybody, and that even that
right is subject to review by the courts
as to its -reasonableness.
A great many people who are not In a
position to know the aw. and also many
who are presumed to have such knowledge,
have been vigorously insisting that the
LEGISLATURE had the right to give to the
Railroad Commission power to fix COM
mutation and other special rates, and that
the failnra TO do 81 10 the dffapf oqnGa
for the increased Communication and other
passenger rates.
Power of Legislature.
The Supreme Court of the United States
has very clearly II explicitly defined the
power of a State Legislature in this re-
spect; and we would respectfully call your
attention to the case of the Lake Shore
and Michigan Central Railway Company
VS.. Smith, which is reported in 13 United
States reports. page 6S4.
In the face of that decision, which is
the law of the land we again insist that
any attempt on the part OF the Legisia-
ceiving the people for partisan political
purposes.
roads from putting into effect these pro-
posed increases, and we pledge ourselves
to support any legitimate plan that may
be suggested to accomplish this result. II
by repeating the present maximum-rate
law and reducing such rate to a minimum
We can accomplish the desired results, we
are in favor OF that course; in fact. we are
willing TO do anything that can legally be
lone TO prevent this injustice. but we do
not think we should be criticised for rec
ognizing the law as laid down by the high
est court In the land and refusing to vote
for a rate-making provision which We
knew In advance to be utterly valueless,
Ineffective and contrary to law.
Relief May BE Found.
1t may be that when the new Federal
railroad act has been studied and con-
strued by the courts it will be found to
afford us the relief which we are so earn
estly seeking, or it may be that some
method can be suggested other than the
Matchmaking power which occupies SO
large a place in the attention of the public
at this time, that will accomplish the de-
sired results. In any event, we wish to
place ourselves SQuarely on record as
favoring any feasible, legitimate and eff
fective plan to prevent these proposed in
creases in the railroad rates.
Trusting that we have made our posi-
ton clear in this matter, we beg to remain
Yours very truly,
LEWIS G.. BOWDEN,
THOMAS II. BROOKS,
DUANE q, MINARD,
HAROLD A. MILLER,
WILLIAM LEE,
THOMAS GOLDINGAY.
]. WILLIAM HUEGEL,
EMIL WOHLFARTH,
ROBERT S. TERHUNE,
THOMAS GILLEN.
COLEMAN e. NISSAN.