Norwich bulletin., 1910-09-15
Public Utilities Bill Defended
by President of State
Business Mems As
ISOLATION.
REPLIES TO CRITICISMS OF PRES
IDENT MELLEN OF N. ",
NJ. n. G. n. r. r.

In reply to the letter of President
! Mellen of the New York. New Haven
and Hartford railroad addressed to
| the Connecticut Editorial association,
and in which were embodied criticisms
OF proposed public utilities bill advocat-
| ed by State Business Mems associa-
| ton, President Jones of the latter as
| ISOLATION has formulated reply in a
| letter to the Connecticut Editorial as
ISOLATION. The following is his answer
| to President Mellen:
The State Business Mems
| Association of Connecticut, Inc.
Danbury. Conn, Sept Y, 1910.
| tMessrs. Everett T. Hill, President, and
| Arthur S. Barnes, Secretary, Con-
| necticut Editorial Association New
| Haven, Connecticut:
Dear Sirs-I beg to reply briefly to
Mr.. Mellen's letter Of the 9th inst.
Abuses Admitted to Exist.
I note that Mr.. Mellen does mot in
tend TO seriously criticise' my gen
eraI statement Of evils sought to BE-
rem edied by proposed legislation" [
think | may fairly assume. therefore,
that Mr. Mellen and myself are sub
stantlally agreed that the abuses which
the business mems bill are intended to
correct do exist and require correc-
ton.
Commission Admitted Necessary.
| also note that Mr.. Mellen suggests
for thoughtful consideration the Gre
alton of L court of commerce" As it
is imlnaterial whether the commission
created be called q public utilities
commission or court of commerce.
whose procedure shall be simple. SEN
sible and speedy" it is evident that
Mr.. Mellen agrees with this associa-
ton that the most practical method of
correcting the admitted abuses is
rrerI, h.
mission Consequently our only point
of disagreement is as to the poVers to
be given to this commission or court
which Mr. Melen suggests.
Powers Given Commission Should Be
Adequate.
Mr.. Mellen suggests that the powers i
of the commission or court" be limit |
ed to the trial of intricate commercial |
questions This very limited power !
seems to be insufficient TO correct the !
admitted evils enumerated in my for |
n1er letter: for how can such a court |
protect public safety? How will it pre- |
vent the present abuses connected |
with special legislation? How will it !
examine and correct meters? BY what |
means will it avoid the evils of over /
capitalization or lack of publicity? |
How will it prevent a telephone or
lighting company, having exclusive |
rights IN a given territory, from drDl- |
trarily refusing to furnish service in |
portions thereof? The business men be- =,
lieve that the powers to be given the |
commission should be conservative, but |
yet adequate to remedy these specific |
abuses which are admitted to exist.
No "Despotic" Commission Through !
Business Mems Bill.
The bill drafted by this association ,
does not create "a despotic political I
board" as insinuated by Mr.. MelIen: /
on the other hand. political activity is
made cause for removal of any com |
missioner by judgment of the courts: /
and the business mems bill gives the /
commission less arbitrary power than /.
that now possessed by every judge of (
our superior court. Every safeguard
which exists to prevent "despotc'' ac-
ton by our judges exists in the case
of the proposed commission. If we
can trust our judges to use and not
abuse the powers granted to them, why
should we hesitate to trust the same
men with lesser or more carefully
guarded powers merely because they
are called commissioners 2"
Takes "Despotic" Powers from Private
Corporations.
II there is a grave danger in giving
'despotic'' powers 10 amy set of men,
why should we continue to give "des-