Norwich bulletin., 1911-01-13
BUSINESS MEN REPLY
TO PRESIDENT MELLEN.
Court Of Commerce Ineffective-Rem
edy by Injunction Undesirable
Business Mems Bill Conservative,
But Efficient.


New Haven, Jan. 1.-THE State
Business Mems association has re-
piled to Mr.. Mellens suggestion that
unsafe and inadequate service or ex-
cessive railroad rates should be rem
edied by injunction; Mr.. Mellen's let
ter also seemed to suggest that the
proposed public utilities commission
was designed to manage all the public
service corporations. President Jones
of the Business Mems association de-
MES this. Mr.. Jones' letter is as fol-
lows:
"Danbury, Conn. Jan. IL. 1911.
"Messrs. Everett G. Hill, President,
and Arthur S. Barnes, Secretary,
Connecticut Editorial Association,
New Haven, Conn:
Dear Sirs-I have read Mr.. Mel
lens very interesting letter of the 24tn
ult.. wherein he further enlarges upon
his suggestion of a court of commerce
instead of a public utilities commits
sion.
MIR. Mellen's suggestion that it IL
undesirable for the state to secure a
political board or administrative COM
mission to manage the business of
public service corporations seems to
me entirely sound. The business men
of the state have not desired, and do
not now ask for, any such managerial
commission; and the bill which they
have drafted for presentation to the
any such board.
In general the administrative COM
mission suggested by that bill could
act only i'll specific cases brought be-
fore it by complaint; i'm matters es-
sential to safety it could act on its
own initiative. 1t is given no man
agerial powers, and is not intended
to supplant the directors of public
service corporations. or to uSurp any
of their legitimate powers. 1t will be
effective, however, in my opinion, 20
protect the public in it's dealings with
these quasi public corporations.
'AThe difficulty with Mr.. Mel1en's S
court of commerce is that it will not
he effective to this end. To attempt
TO insure public safety, adequacy of
service or reasonableness of rates by
a broad extension of the present pow
ers of injunction seems to me both
unwise and impracticable.
IF Mr.. AIellens court of commerce
should find (as was charged at the
last geneal assembly,, that 20~Cents
was an excessive trolley fare Between
Manchester and Hartford, then under
MIR. Mellen's suggestion, it should cor
rect the abuse by an injunction. But
what would be the form of. this in
junction? 1t would not properly en-
join the corporation from charging
over 10 cents; for that would be fix
ing the rate which involves the ex-
hold they do not possess and cannot
be given. If it enjoined the corpora
ton from continuing to charge an 'ex-
cessive' rate. neither the corporation
nor the public would know what was
meant until the question was deter
mined upon a trial for contempt of
court, which seems to me an undesir-
able situation. If it enjoined the cor
poration from continuing to charge 20
cents. the corporation might venture
to charge 10 cents, although anything
over 10 cents might be excessive.
I'm almost every concrete case Mr..
Mellen's suggested remedy by injunc-
ton will be found to be impractical
BILE to really cure the existing evil.
Would it not tend, on the contrary, to
increase litigation, with it's attendant
delays and expense, and to greatly
augment judicial legislation and the
much criticised government by in
Junction.
II am fully in accord with Mr.. Mel
lens high opinion of our Judiciary.
But why can we not obtain men OF
the same character and ability to
serve on an efficient public utilities
commission as on an inefficient court
of commerce? Respectfully yours,
ANDREW r. JONES,
president of State Business Mems
Association"