The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-10-13
SEEK MELLEN'S
 IDEA OF COURT
Editorial Association Ask Him Questions on Proposed
 Commerce Tribunal
SEND PRESIDENT LETTER
Want to Know How Court Will be Better Than Public Utili-
 ties Commission

Another in the series of letters that have passed between the Connecticut Editorial association and President MelIen of the New Haven railroad has appeared in the shape of a communi- cation sent by the association to the
 president referring especially to the establishment of a court of commerce. ! It follows:
 New Haven, Conn.,, Oct 12, 1910. MT. Charles S. Mellen, Pres, N. Y., N. H. & &H. R. R. Co.,, New Haven. Ct. Dear Sir:-In acknowledging your
 valued favor of Sept 2, we note with tn principle to the creation of a tribu
 nal to hear and effectua1ly pass upon | complaipds about railroad charges and
 YoU1 specifications as to the calibre
 of such tribunal 'that it should have
 the independence, impartiality and ability which for generations have
 characterized our courts of justice" leads us to remark that as far as we have been able to discover no other
 the exoonents of Public utilities 1egfs- lation than the proposed commission should be made up of just such men as you specify.
 it has been to create a commission so
 far removed from politics and political activities that even active part1clpa- ton of 8 member of the commission
 
 agement shall be considered cause for
 removal. We shall, therefore, consid-
 CT these two points as agreed upon:
 First. As to the creation of tr1-
 bunal
 Second As to the character of the
 men composing the tribunal.
 We note with great interest your
 statement in regard to the spread Of
 the so-callled progressive movement
 and your desire that Connecticut shall
 be ready with a sane, safe and con-
 stitutiona1 method of applying princi-
 pies of justice to the regulation of mo-
 nopo1ies. We realize that the enact
 ment and successful operation of any law such as is under consideration de- bends largely upon the attitude of your corporation towards such legislation.
 We believe that we -say the truth when we submit that it was not pre- judice against the railroads which was the primal cause in the present agita- tion for a public utilities commission. and we beg of you to meet this move ment, not with the idea that there is a public prejudice against corporations and in particular against railroads,
 but that the entire agitation is part Of forward movement for the bet ter regulation of monopolies.
 The policy of the state of Connect1- cut has always been most liberal to- wards public service corporations and we believe this is so in particular to- ward the corporation which you rep resent, The New York, New Haven C Hartford railroad company The bus mess of the railroad company is the largest business in the state, and it well behooves the people of this com rnonwealth to do nothing by legisla- tive act which shall harm the busi- ness of this great corporation. The lines operated and controlled by your company now reach every one of the New England states, and your com pany is either directly or indirectly re- sponsible to the people of these states at hand to the bulk of the communi- ties of these states. And yet the New York, New Haven and Hartford rail- road company is a Connecticut insti- Connecticut charter.
 We would moreover as citizens of Connecticut ask for a more definite l explanation of your proposed Court 1 of Commerce. There must be to your mind some valid reason for preferring | the Court of Commerce. to a public | kindly advise us as to the following l points:
 1. What is your conception of "Court of Connerce?''
 g. How is it different from a public l utilities commission? Why better?
 3. Would the functions of the pro | posed court of commerce clash with | the functions of the interstate com | merce commission?
 In order to keep separate and dis | tinct the three departments of our l able that the granting of charters for | public service corporations and the ex- tension of the same both as to time limit and as to territory covered shall | be a function of the legislature?
 We believe that by answering these questions you can give us more def1n- 1 ite idea of what you mean by a court | of commerce.
 In regard to capitalization, it strikes us that there is room for considerable difference of opinion You state that capital bears no relation to the actual or possible gross or net earnings of the company and you specify com petent manager as one 'who earns all he can.'' By this we take it that you intend to convey that the manager earns all he can for his stockholders, of all realize his responsibility, to his [ stockholders, and if he is worth his salt'' he certainly will endeaVor to re turn a fair dividend to all the stock holders. All expenses and cost of op- eration must first be paid before there is any return in dividends to any Therefore it strikes us that it makes considerable difference a normal dividend is figured on actual money invested or on an in Hated valuation. Possibly this fact holders as to whether or not man ager is worth his salt"
 It may be your intention Io meet when you further discuss the regula- tion of the capitalization of corpora tions- You cannot be aware that what we nave III nl1nQ IS the OiSiIOi0SIy CA stock watering dishonesty which carries it's own punishment. a punish ment, however, in which the public shares with the stockh holders.
 big corporation may not mean big dividends; and a small capitalization may not mean small dividends; this assuming that each represents actual value in investmen But it is not a rule that big capitalization in propor- ton to valuation means inadequate service or poor dividends, and in any case stands for dishonest finance, bad for all concerned? As an instance Of the evils of stock watering may we not cite the Metropolitan Street Rail way system of New York city which. in one of the best fields for profit the