Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-05-31
Frank Bergen, General Counsel
of Public Utilities Company,
Files Argument.
DISCUSSES CASES OF
POLICE AND FIREMEN
Takes Up School ChiIdren's
Rates and Cites Decisions
to Support Contention.

AS requested by the Board of Public
Utility Commissioners at the meeting
in the Court House here last Friday,
Frank Bergen, general counsel for the
Public Service Corporation, has filed a
brief at Trenton on transportation
matters effected by the public utilities
act.
Mr.. Bergen names the three most
important questions under discussion
and submits his suggestions. The first
question is Does the utility act pro-
hibit the carrying by street railway
companies of policemen and firemen in
uniform with9I paying fares? The
corporation cosITel declares it has been
judicially determined that policemen
and firemen are included within the
designation of officials as distinguished
from employees.
To bear out his contention he cites
several cases in New Jersey, New
York Massachusetts, and Texas where
this ruling has been made. The BRIEF
continues;
"OmctaI' Is DcuHeu.
THE utility act of 1910 showed a
legislative definition of the word 'ofli-
cial. as is contained in the act in ques-
ton, because II had therein this pro-
vision But nothing herein contained
shall prevent the free transportation OF
uniformed public officers while engaged
i'm the performance of their public du-
ties This being omitted from the act
in question is conclusive as to its
meaning.
independent of this express prohibi-
ton paragraph td), section IL, herein
after referred to, prohibiting diserimi-
ma ton, would prevent this free serV-
ice"
Regarding school Children.
The second question: Does the
utility act prohibit the carrying by
streets railway companies OF school
children and school teachers at re-
dueed fare?" To this Mr.. Bergen sub
mits the following:
THE prohibition against school tick
cts comes under paragraph (d), section
49, subdivision Ill of the act. AS this
is taken from the interstate commerce
act. it comes under the well-known
rule of Interpretation, which requires
the construction of a statute of one
state enacted in another to be adopted
by the State in which it is reenacted
"A fixed and received construction by
State in its own courts makes part OF
the statute law And as Chief Justice
White, in the late case of United States
VS.. Standard Oil Company ct ais, says
Where words are employed in stat
ute which had at the time a we'll
known meaning at common law or in
the law of this country, they are pre-
sumed to have been used in that sense,
unless the context compels to the con-
trary?'
At this point Mr. Bergen cites a num-
Der of cases bearing on the subject.
Neither of the above provisions gain
any additional reasoning for a mega
tive answer from the suggestion that
they are contracts of the corporation
with the munich pality and so saved by
constitutional inhibition from abroga-
ton by the Legislature. At most. they
are permissible conditions inserted by
authority of the Legislature by a sub
ordinate branch of the State govern
ment. They are not only within the
power of the municipality to surrender
them. but of course are also within
the superior power Of the Legislature.
"The right of the Legislature to
abolish an office is unquestionable.
The power of the Legis ature over cor
porations created for purposes of local
government is supreme. The general
CONTINUED on Second Page0