The Washington times., 1911-06-02

question: pom the part Of Incorporation.
In the Maryland Legislature Of 1910 the
night before that body was to get pub
| lie utility law with teeth law with
| teeth was passed, but up to tAis time,
although the commission in this State
has been constantly at work and has
performed splendid service. it has not
yet been called upon to use the teeth
with which the law has supplied 1t.
Having said this much generally of
| Senator La Follette's bill, there are
some notifications with respect to the
am going to make so bold as to suggest.
Section 3 which provides for the
organizatiort>of the commission, and the
tenure, ETC.. of the commissioners, fails
to make any provision for. their re;
moval. l suggest that there be inserted
in line one at the top of page a. after
the word succeed the following pro-
vision: The President may remove any
commissioner for inefficiency, neglect
Of duty or misconduct in of1ce, giving
him a copy of the charges against him
and an opportunity OF being publicly
heard in person or by counsel in his
own defense upon not less than ten
days notice
Il Furthermore suggest that there is
some objection to making the special
qualification as provided in section 2,
lines to Z, on page of the bill for
each commissioner. The qualifications
prescribed may require the selection OF
all three members of the commission
from persons who have been in the em-
pIoy Of or closely identified with the
public service corporations themselves.
Useless Qualifications.
1T occurs to me that instead of pre-
scribing that one of the commissioners
must have a general knowledge of law
pertaining to public utilities, and another
a general knowledge of accounting and
business of public utilities, and the
third a general knowledge of all mat
ters pertaining to the cost and opera
ton of public utilities, as the bill pro-
vides, 1t would be better to make no
such qualifications with respect to the
personnel of the commission, leaving
that to the discrimination and dis
cretion Of the appointing power, and
then. to secure to the commission the
benefit of special and expert knowledge
along the three undoubtedly important
lines mentioned, by providing for gen.
eral counsel TO the commission and an
expert accountant with a general knowl-
edge of accounting and business of the
public service corporations, and also
another employe with special or expert
knowledge pertaining to their cost and
operation.
L tninR, upon COnBlueTdtIOH, SehdlOi
La Toilette will realize that such a
plan would be preferable, as II would
particularly add these expert aids and
assistants, as leading employees OF the
commission, to three commissioners
whom, doubtless, the President would
select by reason of their special quail
fications for the general work and du-
ties of the commission. This plan may
be a trifie more expensive, but believe
II would produce better results and
avoid the possible objection first above
suggested in this regard.
Question Of Residence.
There is one other suggestion have
to make with respect to the organiza-
ton of the commission, and that Is In
relation to the provision in lines to 9
on page ( in section Of the bill. that
not more than two of said commission
ers shall be resident in the District OF
Columbia at the date of appointment
I think this provision a proper one,
but that there should be added the
Qualification that at least enc COM
missioner shall be resident Of the
District. As the bill now stands, all
three Of the commissioners may be
nonresidents OF the District. 1t will be
probably desirable to have one or them
resident member.
vision Is made for the ascertainment
of the amount of money expended IN
the construction and equipment of eV-
ery public utility, ] suggest that after
the words as nearly in section 5, line
13, on page s, of the bill. there be IN