Norwich bulletin., 1911-02-03
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Wlsek che Court of Commerce pess Not
 Provide For.

lGr Bsffcor: The court of commerce blf Ss undoubtedly entitled. like every measure presented. to consideration upon ifs merits The business men, 6sctive for the following reasons among others. regardless of the ques- 1fon of constitutionality:
 l. IL makes no attempt to prevent tho watering of securities. The people of the state are now paying over half a million dollars annually as dividends on the admitted water in the Connec- ticut Railway and Lighting companys securities. Why make no attempt to prevent 6 repetition of this disastrous 8candai-
 2. It imposes upon no state official the obligation to investigate accidents with a view to ascertaining their real cause and recommending means to pre- vent their recurrence. Why allow 1,500 persons to he killed and injured an- nualiy on our street railways alone s40 per cent. of them from causes ad- mitfedly beyond their own controD and make no effort to prevent the con- ftant recurrence of these accidents?
 2. II makes no provision for the Inspection of meters on complaint.
 4- Ii gives no public official author }fy on his own initiative to require the rcrnedyfn1 of unsafe conditions. It makes it necessary flor some public spirited individual to affirlnatively prove at his own expense. and after long litigation. the existence of the defect and need of remedy. What railroad employe would prosecute a probable loss of his position to compel the railroad to install a derailing swftch. remove dangerous overhead structures or place in operation an emcsent block signal system?
 B. Ii adds nothing to the existing
 
 sonabfe service at reasonable rates
 G. It makes this obligation no more Teadily enforcible than before. While the court can appoint a committee of investigation, the committee is given no power to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of books. The individual who objects to the over crowding of trolley cars at rush hours must prove at his own expense. and nxafnst the ablest legal talent in the etatf. the ability of the corporation to Furnish better service without loss of e proper return upon it's investment
 [. The proposed court of commerce is to be merely the starting point of litigation. An immediate appeal lies In every case from every order to the existing courts.
 1t may he added that to the mind of 1he business man 1t is wiser to adopt the administrative commission-the ronstitntionaiitv of which is estahlis d and the effectiveness of which has been proved-than the court of conn 1nerce. an untried experiment. even the constitutionality of which is in serious doubt
 NORsrAND r. ALLEN, Chairman of Legislative Committee of
 State Bu-iness Mems Association.
 Stony Brook Watershed.
 Mir. Editor. VIII you permit me through your columns to present an analysis of the figures as submitted by the board of water commissioners? Plan C Of Jordan brook and Plan C. pf stony brook call for the largest expenditure. Stony brook sgo4 GOO Jordan brook Sse0.c00.
 By comparison we find as follows:
 Jordan Brook.
 Hfilee Of watershed .. 175 Reservoir capacity ..... 330 900 OOO Daily yield gallons. ...... 1900. GOO (oel- -.-- --.....-.-. S290 900
 Stony Brook.
 Miles of watershed ... s3 aGnervUir capacity ..... $50. .OoO 900 Oaily yield, gallons. 1.50O. .OOO cost ---.-.--..... $304, ,000 1t fx stated that the cost of the eev erAI water rights Is unknown but if 1s estimated that at Jordan brook they will cost s17.0oo.
 At Stony brook little less than 44.o00- IL Is we'll known that in 1901 &oR. charies Johnson, owner of the vvneor right on Stony brook, stated in ssf1tiUD that he would accept $4,o0O in