Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-01-19
PUBLIC UTILITIES
CONTROL URGED
ON STATE HEADS
Governor Fort, at Washington
Conference, Outlines Plan for
Improved Regulation.

WASHINGTON, JAM, is.-At the
conference of governors here today
Governor John Franklin Fort, of New
Jersey, made an address,, outlining his
views as to State and national control
of public utility corporations. Among
other things Mr.. Fort said:
Governor Forts Speech.
THE relation of the State to public
service corporations created by II has
been the subject Of much discussion
during the past few years, and will
probably continue TO be for some time
to come. And yet it is difficult TO II
derstand why any serious controversy
has ever arisen over the problem. t
"A corporation is the reatu of the
State. Expressed in another way, it is
simply an agency Of the state having
conferred upon it certain of the powers
which the State may grant, with the
authority 10 exercise those powers in
the way the tatut creating II pro-
vides. The legal principles controlling
the State in its creation of agencies for
the supervision and regulation of public
serving corporations would seem TO be
so thoroughly settled as not to be open
TO serious debate.
"The clause OF the federal
constitution unquestionably gives ample
power to the Congress to supervise and
regulate all interstate traffic. The
trend of the decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States nave all
been 10 enlarge and extend this power
of Congress over the subject, until it Is
now SO firmly settled that 1t may be
deemed 10 be almost, If not fully, an
arbitrary power.
THE common law doctrine of the po-
lice power which inheres in the sover-
eighty of ach State, irrespective of
any constitutional provision in any
State, is broad enough to cover all the
authority for supervision and regulation
which is essential to the protection of
the people of q State in the regulation
of public serving corporations within
the state. So long as the power cxer-
cised by the state Is only to regulate
and not to destroy or confiscate. it is
within the police power.
THE public serving companies, in
most of the States, are practically with
out supervision or regulation of any
kind; save to such extent as q few
statutes and municipal ordinances may
prescribe. The character of the serv-
ice and the rate of their charges differ
In the different cities and towns within
the State. There Is nc uniformity what
ever, and the exactions, where no State
supervision or regulation exists, are
based upon the mere whim of the serv-
ing companies.
THE great difficulty up to this time
has been to secure any kind of cooper
alton between the companies and the
State. The effort has been, by all sorts
of methods, to make it appear that
supervision and regulation were MOI
necessary and were not desired by the
people, and the people have failed to
appreciate, to the full, the advantages
which would accrue to them through
such a commission. These conditions
are now changing. The far-seeing cor
poration official now recognizes that
public sentiment demands regulation
by the State, in h interests of tho
people, of all the companies operating
under public franchises for public serv-
ice and private gain.
IF the managers of such companies
would only see the true relation which
they occupy to the people much of the
difficulty in solving these questions
would be removed. The Supreme
Court of the United States has de-
clared that the public power to regu-
late and the private right OF owner
ship by public-serving corporations CO.
/ exist and do not the n destroy the
other II directors of public-serving
companies could only be brought to
realize that they have an equal re-
] sponsibility to the State, to promote
the public interests, with that resting
| upon them to care for the interests OF
t the stockholders, much, if not all, OF
the objection to State regulation would
disappear In fact, II directors We're
to truly regard his joint obligation OF
their public and private relation to
their trust, possibly no commission
would be needed at all.
1.-THE problem Is not an easy one to
, solve. There are questions of difficulty
: in all directions. State supervision has
it's limitations. 1t should not be e
tended toy practically amount to gov
! eminent ownership. Nor should it as
sert actual control in any way. II
should be strictly confined to correc.
ton in management. The power Of
initiative in an administrative State
board can only cause embarra ssnlent
The power OF revision and review viii
answer every purpose. When no wrong
exists no need for supervision a be
found. Directors Of public-servins
companies should be given a free hand
to manage and direct their corporate
affairs n business. Only when com
plant is made of the fairness and jus.
tice of their acts Is there either righ'
or reason for State interference. ever
for reeulative purposes. Let the stat
utes define with precision the powers
and obligations Of directors in admin
istering their trust, and the admins
trativc board OF the State be given au
J tkority 70 meet n correct any in