The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-06-07
E.. Fl. DILLON & co.

ommendation made. The secretary of the legislative commission that in vestigated this subject two years ago, told the committee that he had made careful inquiries in Massachusetts with regard to this matter, and that power of a commission to recommend was absolutely effective in practice. There can be no constitutional ques- tion raised with regard to the con- ferring on an administrative body Of the power to investigate and recom- mend regarding rates, services and safety.
 On the other hand, there is, to say the least, very serious doubt whether an absolute power to fix rates and charges of public service corporations could constitutionally be conferred upon a commission. So far as rail- road rates are concerned, the Su- preme Court of the United States has held that "The power to prescribe & tariff of rates for carriage by a com mon carrier is legislative and not an administrative or judicial func- tion" The Supreme Court of this State has held that the Connecticut Constitution is based upon sepata- tion of the executive, legislative and judicial departments, and that the functions of one of these departments cannot constitutionally be exercised by either of the other departments. A bill which confers upon a commis- sion a power to fix rates is bill which confers upon branch of the executive department legislative power and under the decisions of our Supreme Court would seem to be un- constitutional.
 am aware that Governor Bald win has given his opinion that the minority bill Is constitutional. I do not venture any opinion of my own
 11D ever, that on this point of the sepa- ration of the three departments Of government by our Connecticut Con stitution Governor Baldwin was, while on the Supreme Court in a minority of one. and that against him subject, Judges Andrews, Torrance, Fenn, Hamsersely. Hall and Prentice. Under these circumstances, I cannot but consider it at least doubtful whether Judge Baldwin's views on this subject will ever prevail in the Supreme Court. If the judges of that Court abide by their previous de- cisions, it would seem clear that the minority bill is unconstitutional.
 I appeal to Senators to consider carefully whether 1t is not better to avoid, if possible, the danger of so subject that it may turn out to be contrary to the Constitution and use- less to the people whom we repre- sent.
 EXPERIENCE OF MAsSACHU-
 SETTS.
 In conclusion, I ask Senators to re- member that if they adopt the ma jority report on these matters, they are not embarking on an unknown sea. They will be following the ex- tensive experience of a State nearest to us whose institutions most resem- ble ours. In Massachusetts for many years there have been separate com missions for different classes of pub- lie service corporations. In Massa- chusetts, both as regards railroads and telephones, the commissioners issue only recommendations. It may be confidently said, however, that In no State of this Union is the reguia- tion of railroad and telephone cor porations by commissions more effec- public than in the State of Massa- of,sssssssss..ts. We shall be safer to fol- i5Is Massachusetts than to follow Wisconsin and New York
 List of states having no commits sion to supervise railroad or other December. 1910, Delaware, Idaho, North Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming,
 States with commission having Jurisdiction only over railroads and other common carriers: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Con necticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi Mis- souri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada. New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island. South Carolina, South Dakota, Ten nessee, Texas, Washington.
 States having commissions with jurisdiction over all public utilities of the usual sort: Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey New York, Oklahoma, Vermont, Vir, ginia, Wisconsin.