Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1910-09-27

New Haven. Sept. 26.--The following
letter from President Mellen of the
New York, New Haven and Hartford
Railroad company was made public to-
day:
Sept. "a. 1910.
Messrs. Everett G. Hill, President, Ar
thur S. Barnes, Secretary, Connec-
ticut Editorial Association, New
Haven, Conn:
Gentlemen: l find your letter of Sept.
10th awaiting me on my return to New
Haven after few days absence.
The most vital question which un-
derlies your inquiries is, in substance.
whether l object in principle to the
creation of a tribunal to hear and et-
fectively pass upon complaints about
railroad charges and railroad service.
Favors Tribunal to Decide Controver-
sizes Between Public and Railroad.
If 1 understand this question Alright,
L agree that it ought to receive a frank
and unequivocal reply. My answer is,
categorically: No, | do not. But | re-
spectfully submit through you to the
people of this state: First, that such
tribunal ought to have the independ-
ence. lmpartiality and ability which Tor
many generations have characterized
our courts of justice; and, secondly,
that such a tribunal ought not to exer
else functions which are properly legis-
lative in their nature. but ought on
the other hand to decide without arbi
trariness between the parties to each
controversy according to justly eStab-
lished principles and rules of law.
The General Assembly.
You invite discussion by me of the
trustworthiness of the general assem-
bly, of Connecticut If ] may be frank
without giving offense. l have to con-
fess that in private l have often exer-
clsed the American citizens privilege
of finding fault with American legisla-
lures. | have privately said that there
are SO many individual members in any
American legislature who are more or
less prejudiced against railroad cor
porations that it is often extremely diff
flcult for such a corporation to get
fair hearing before it.
Here in Connecticut a great disturb
ance i.s sometimes made because of
what seems to US ar entirely reasona-
bic request for legislation for the ben
eft of our business which is conceded
TO be the largest business of this state.
In spite of all argument upon our part
such requests by us are more often
refused than not. and have som atimeS
been refused when precisely similar re-
quests made by others have been ac-
tually granted for their benefit at the
same session.
Yet in spite of the various facts or
supposed facts on which all sorts of
conflicting COM plants against the Con-
necticut legislature we must | think.
all admit that if we look back over a
sufficient term of years nothing has
happened in Connecticut that ought to
shake our faith in the principles of
representative government or in the
wisdom of our own constitution. If We
now examine in retrospect the doingS
of the general assembly a any session
sufficiently long past to admit of a
calm, historical judgment, we do not
find that the state has suffered any
serious harm either through any laws
that were then passed or because Of
the failure to pass any of the hundreds
of bills which We're then introduced
If any fair-minded. thinking man has
an impression that this railroad COM
pany has unrea sonably influenced in
it's own favor the legislation of this
state. | respectfully ask him to exam
inc all the existing sta tuteS of ConneC-
ticut, whether public or private, which
especially affect this company or its
business, and then candidly to decide
for himself whether we have obtained
any legislation from which the state
has experienced any injury. I earnest
ly assert that we have never wilfully
promoted any legislation which the di-
ractors or officers of the railroad COM
pany have thought to be in any respect
injurious to the public. Nor have we
any temptation to seek such legisla-
ton in the future: for it is our aDSo
lutte conviction that the interests of the
railroad company are so intimately
bound up with the interests of the ter
ritory which the railroad serves that
any legislation which is against the
public interest must necessarily be
against our true interest.
Political Commissions.
If my memory serves me correctly.
[ have heard in the past as much. if
not more. just and unjust criticism of
Connecticut commissions as of the
Connecticut Legislature. Just now there
seems to be popular tendency to as
sumo that a proposed new commission
with great powers is to be an ideal
commission. with regard to which for
mer experience affords us no basis of
judgment. ! am unable to see why it
would not be quite as possible to have
ideal Legislatures composed of the
strongest and most patriotic men in
the state as to have ideal commission
ers.
In the first place, no political posi-
ton. with its inevitable insecurity of
tenure and its necessarily more or less
moderate salary. Will have sufficient
attraction for the best business and
professional men of the state.
In the second place. the more attrac-
tive a political position is made. the
more it is sought after by men of po-
their friends and supporters.
If | may be pardoned concrete il
lustration should like to ask whether
the late O. r. Fyler (whose memory 1
respect, but about whom in his life
time there We're so many varying judg-
ments) would have been any less likely
to desire a, similar but better position
than that Of railroad commission and
whether if he did desire it. he would
have been any less likely to obtain it.
If you change the method of appoint
ment to such an office, YOU do not
alter the substantial fact that in poll
ticr. it is generally political intiu ance
which controls. 1t is commonly easier
for politicians to influence the action
Of popular nominating ConN ention or
OF a legislative caucus than it is to
influence the action OF governor after
he is elected
Until human nature changes human
institutions will work in the future as
they have worked in the past. Every
thinking man must expect that the
same conditions will hereafter affect
the election of railroad commissioners.
insurance commissioners. bank com
rnissioners, tax commissioners and 9th
er administrative oficials