The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-06-06

and in the way have indicated, the | public at large.
 We. gave due weight to the repre- | sentations made to our Committee by
 the representatives of these corpora tions, that publicity in their financial | operations might be productive of in-
 jury by putting in possession of rival | interests knowledge of contemplate ted
 movements, and prompted by these 1 considerations, we eliminated the pro-
 visions of the so-called business mems | bill for obtaining permission for the | issue of stocks and bonds from the l Commission, and as stated, we have
 substituted the provisions making of such stock watering g. crime, and pro- | viding for severe punishment for this | Offense.
 The Committee are a unit in recom-
 mending this particular item of legis-
 lation
 The majority of the Committee have l presented for your consideration, two l bills, whereby to preserve the present | Railroad Commission to exercise ju- | risdiction over steam and street rail- 1 ways and to create another separate l commission to have Jurisdiction over 1 other public service corporations.
 Unlike the scheme of the minority | report 1t is proposed with apparent
 seriousness that these two commits | sions shall have no power to make
 any order or direction whatever to cor
 rect an abuse, however fragrant the | evil complained of. These Commits | sioners, while theoretically represent
 ing the sovereignty of the State, are. in | fact, under the terms of the majority 1 report to approach the Public Service 1 Corporation that may be complained of, with hats deferentially lifted, and, after investigation, and finding some abuse to exist they are, on pended 4n %
 poration, a few polite suggestions look ing to a remedy of the evil. The corporation is at liberty to heed the advice, or not, as it chooses. If it does not, the Attorney-General pre-
 sents the matter to the Superior Court It is here that the majority of the Committee, are in the vernacular of
 the day, handing the good people of Connecticut a "lemon.'' As lawyers they are aware Gas 1aymen are noD that our Superior Court has in a
 comparatively recent decision, (Nor-
 walk Street Railway Company's Ap- peal, 69 Conn.,, page 576) limited the
 class of cases in which our Courts
 will take jurisdiction. It is held that as our Constitution strictly separate
 our political Government into three de- partments, the Executive the Legisla-
 tive and the Judicial, the Courts are not at liberty under these constitu-
 tional limitations to exercise legisla-
 tive functions, but only judicial func- tions. Accordingly, in the case refer red to. the Court held that it could
 not take Jurisdiction to order the To- cation of street railway tracks in the City of Norwalk.
 The cunning corporation lawyers who drafted these majority bills and handed them to the members of the Judiciary Committee. well appreciat- ed the hidden force behind this scheme | 4l.z a all power to direct a corporation to
 correct an abuse. and upon presenta- tion of the matter to the Court, to have the Court, except in a limited number of cases of a peculiar nature, refuse to take Jurisdiction to make any order in the premises, as it did in the Norwalk case and in other cases that have arisen since then. Where would
 the rights of the public be protected
 under the legal legerdemain I have outlined?
 If the courts will not review orders
 of the nature outlined. you may ask what the status would be on appeal
 to the Courts from the orders of the Commission under the provisions of the minority bill.
 It is this-that all orders of the Conn.,
 mission would be effective unless re- versed by the Courts. The limitation
 upon the right of review produces an element of strength, rather than of weakness, for the narrower the field of review. the more effective are the orders of the Commission.
 Reverse this plan, as the majority bill has done, and you have no orders whatever from the Commission, and
 upon petition to the Court, you find
 that the court will act in only a mar row class of cases and the public will be left without redress.
 The only class of cases under the ma in vrhi ia6 take jurisdiction and grant redress is that where the fundamental contract with the state under it's franchise. and that I have already discussed, is in- volved in the controversy. As for instance, whether a certain service violates the basic charter promise to render such service at such rates as a fair return upon it's actual investment would warrant.
 This means a trial of vast propor- tions. namely, to go eXhaustively into it's finances to show that the service or rates demanded would still admit of a fair profit upon it's capital stock and would not be confiscatory of it's corporate property. In other words in order to present judicial question, and of which the Courts would take cognizance, the aggrieved public, must. however insignificant the matter un- der consideration. enter upon the trial
 of the larger question just outlined. This is not easily understood by the laynan, and those who drafted th.e
 majority report and those advocatil N tage of that lack of understanding oS the comparative legal effect of these two reports.
 No man can honestly give his sup port to this vicious product known as the majority bills if he understands their legal purport.
 It must be source of great, though concealed. merriment to the lawyers
 of these public service corporations to
 be affactad- as they appreciata tha na-