The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-08-18
LAWYERS SHOULD DRAFT IT

k1Gu U 6thO OIISO6O .
 Holds That Candidates Approving Bill Have Indicated Disqualification as Legislators.
 In response to . request made for his opinion from a legal standpoint of the Utilities bill prepared by the Connecticut State Business Mems as- sociation to be submitted to the legis- lature at the coming season. Attor- ney Prentice w. Chase of New Haven. has replied ia the following letter to the Journal-courier:
 New Haven. Conn. Aug. 18 1910. To the Editor of the Journal Courier. New Haven Conn.,:
 My Dear Sir-I am in receipt of a letter from MT. c. N. B.. requesting me to offer my comments. favorable or otherwise. concerning a proposed "Act for the regulation and super vision of public service corporations prepared by the State Business Mems Association" and to publish my criti- cism in your issue of an early date. I. therefore. send you the following as part compliance with the re- Tn the outset think it would have been better had the old adage of the shoemaker sticking to his last been adopted. An act Of the character intricate problems of Jaw. and com- plicatsd questions of fact to be passed upon by cur ooHFts. hereafter if 1t becomes . law. that no man or set of men. sxoept thoroughly. experienced lawyers and legislators should have o%% k- In the first place. Section of the Proposed Act, reading as follows:
 NO officer. employee. attorney or agent of any Public Service company shall be a. member or employee of said commission"-is in direct viola stitution of this state. which reads as follows: Every eleQtor shall be eligt- ble to any office in this state except in cases provided for In this Con- stitution." This does not mean an in eligibility provided for by the legisla- ture. It means just what it says. That the legislature has no authority or power to create an office excluding any e1ector from being eligible to hold any office except such as is prohfbtted in the Constitution itself.
 Section 4 of the proposed aot is equally repulsfve and antaEouisffc. if not to the Constitution. at least to cfvn government. when 1t provides that removals may be made from the office of commissioner or any comnis- sioner for activity in political manage ment or campaigns. The feature of the pfoposed bill literally prohibits a man from taking part in the welfare of his state, town. county or city and practi- cally renders him a useless servant of the people and a useless citizen as we'll. It is ridiculous in it's conception and absurd and would be disgusting if operative.
 Section of the proposed act. em- towering the commissioners with the right of entry into any premises and buildings. etc. in view of section I. which permits. by implication at least. the individual ownership of the com panies of corporations mentioned in said section is delegating a right to the commissioners to enter a mans private property for the purposes of Investigating, examining and compellA, ing him to furnish evidence in civil or criminal actions against his will and permission.
 Section 8 of the proposed act is not only unconstitutional. but in violation of the purposes and spirit of our civil government in this state inasmuch as it provides that the legislature is ask ed to delegate not only it's own power to the commission. but that it dele gates what it has no right te delegate. the power of delegation to the com mission itself.
 Section 12 of the proposed act dele gates the legisuative power of eminent domain to the commission and by so doing they are delegating one of the most important inherent powers with in the absolute control of the people of this sate. The electors of the state when voting for. and electing its rep resentatives to our legislature convey to them the right to take land without the consent of the owner by the legal process known as eminent domain. Section 12 provides that the legislature instead of granting this right in spe- cif1c cases, delegate that which they have no authority to delegate to the commissioners.
 Then again. taking section 1 of the proposed act in connection with sec- tion 12 it is proposed that the com missioners have right to delegate the right of eminent domain to an in dividual- or person to take the private property of a private citizen for an individual private right. which is ab- solutely contrary to the spirit and pur- pose of all civil governments.
 The proposed act again in Section 5s repeals all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the law contained within itself. By this one sweep the proposed act wipes out of our Con- necticut statute practically four hun dred sections of the Connecticut stat utes of 1902 and all subsequent bi- annual enactments and leaves uncer- tain such an overwhelming number of questions of fact and law that the commissioners and the court of this state would not ha able to interpret that which had been replaced and that which remained in force if they occu- pied every schoolhouse and courthouse in the state in the transaction Of their business.
 After this brief summary of some of the apparent defects in the proposed bill it might be wise to add that those of the candidates for public office in this state. who have given their con- sent to the proposed bill and have expressed a desire to favor it. if elect ed to office. have indicated their dis qualification of legislators by the very answers they have made to the State Business Mems association
 If such thoughtless men are accept able to the unoualified authors of this proposed act. they ought not to satis- fly lovers of free government
 PRENTICE w. CHASE. FERROUS ADVENTURE