The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-08-24
ATTORNEY CHASE
 EXPLAINS STAND
Makes Further Reply to Ralph o
 Wells on Public Utilities Bill
ON EXECUTIVE ASSUMPTION
Discovers Operation of Utilities NOtOriottomy."

The following letter. from Attorney Prentice w. Chase. in reply to Ralph O. Wells answer to his attack on the constitutionalfty of the Business Mems Association public utilities bill,, is self explanatory:
 nal and Courier:
 In my open letter of August 18th last. published in your paper, I at tempted in part to criticize the public utilities bill offered by. the Business Mems Association. At that time, space prohibited a full compliance with the request that prompted it. There fore please publish the following as a supplement.
 Upon further investigat ton and ob- servation, it is now known. by the confession of one at Danbury recent ly, and by the flutter of another, that two men, at least, living in or near Hartford, have had the operation known to modern political surgery as 'fUtilitus Notoriottomy'', and from all that can be learned about this ter rible thing, it absorbes all other kinds of thought looking towards the pub lie welfare. and jealously sticks out to the exclusion of >aH other noble polit- ical sentiments.
 eft of those who desire to see a proper and sane "bill'' drawn, one which cannot be attacked success fully upon legal grounds, offer the further criticism for their considera- ton.
 s I again claimed here that Section 3 of tho proposed act violates Article 6, Section 4, of the Connecticut con- stttution, and do so now, and did so in the last letter. with full knowledge of the case of State vs. Bradley, AS Conn.,, page 5S5.
 This case holds that a petit juror in the trial of minor criminal case is not a public officer, and therefore is without the force of this provision of commission, however. if created, can not be claimed not to be public off cers
 Section 145 of the general statutes has never been declared unconstitu- tional. Why should it? The office of attorney general has always been occupied by an elector of this State and therefore no grounds upon which this law could be tested has ever been presented. If lawyer of less than ten years practice and an elector should be elected to this office. it is my opinion, he would hold it, and the provision of Section 145 declared to be in violation of Artice 4, Section of our fundamental law if his right was attacked.
 In the case of Town of Chester vs. The Connecticut Valley R. R. Com pany, our Supreme court held that the Railroad Commissioners were judicial officers. This would be equally. true of the new<utilities commission. With this in view, Section 4 of the proposed act violates the provision of Article g., Sections 1 and of the constitution, wherein it says: "The Governor and all other executive and judicial officers shall be liable to impeachment and that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power to do this" How then, does the framer of this new 'sbill' expect to work out the process of removal from office as provided in Section with this constitutional law expressly opposing such a procedure?
 It is claimed as a merit for this bill that public sentiment favors the elimination of public officers from participating in political affairs. This claim is not true in fact, and of no force in theory. All of our public officers in this state from the gover- nor down, with the exception of our judges, are notoriously and rightly in terested in all political affairs.
 It is my opinion that the judges of our courts, from the very fact that they are men Of ripe and broad knowledge, would very materially inn
 
 more engaged in state matters of a political common concern. We might at least have their experienced in- formation; the product in the shape of laws, of their extended learning and much less of the mOnstrous laws now drafted and passed by lot of self-seeking office-holders which we have today.
 The new proposed bill disqualifies upwards of 50000 of our best cleo tors from holding the office of com missioner, and yet leaves the stock holders of any of the public service corporations eligible to fill them. attorneys of these companies more likely to go wrong than the man who is financially interested, or not?
 Again, no oath is provided for in the bill, and neither is there any pro- vision for expenses to maintain the commissioners office contained in the bill.
 Section F of the proposed bill will be an attempt on the part of the leg islature of 1911 to bind and control all subsequent legislatures; in itself, of course, ridiculous.
 Sections "A, 25 and 26 of the bill provide that anyone may complain in writing, etc., etc., and the com missioners must act upon the com plaint. The mess this will make can only be appreciated by those who know our Carols and a thousand kiekers of like kind.
 The bill, with its many other de- fleets, might be excused 3 upon the moral pretence or another if the law would permit, but no excuse can be accepted for the absence in the bill of any provision making the senate or house or both participants in the creation of the commission. Every appointive office should and nearly all have this one safeguard against executive assumption. Why is it left out of this proposed act?
 The bill as now drafted is so mon- strous in many of it's provisions and so seine like in construction that were it not for the appearance of as- suming that the drafters of it knew what they were doing when they pro- duced 1t, would be led to believe that they were employed by the. cor porations to be affected.
 agree fully with Representative Higgins concerning this subject mat fer, except his praise of the proposed bill. but must from the very nature of things side-step at this. This bill the Chandler bill and the original public utilities bill, all have the same earmarks and like the poor coon, all look alike to me. Let us have a good bill and let US have some one else produce it.
 PRENTICE W. CHASE.