The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-02-17
DAWSON'S 0. K.
Attorney General Thinks House
Utilities Bill Alright.
Takes Issue With Administra-
in It's Criticism.
1T HAS THE TEETH.
He Discusses the Clause Re-
garding Qualifications.
House Bill Not So Long and In
.tricate as Senate Bill.

Following the criticism of the house
utilities bill from administration
quarters as printed in the State Jour-
nal Thursday. comes John s. Dawson,
attorney general, and declares that
the house bill is a good and effective
measure. Mr.. Dawson made a record
as attorney for the railroad board for
two years and had success in his OPP
erations against railroad and express
companies, therefore his opinion is
worthy of consideration. Mr.. Daw
son says in an interview today, speak
ing of both the house and senate util-
tiles bills:
Both the house and senate bills
pertaining to the regulation and con-
troll OF public utilities are pieces of
constructive legislation of a very high
order, carrying on their face incon-
testible proof of the earnest, conscien-
tious work of the men who framed
these measures. Both bills are SUI
periof, in my judgment, to the public
utility bills which were the subject of
such fierce controversy before the
legislature two years ago. All this is
natural enough because the contests of
two years ago have provoked the
widest discussion and research on the
part of many people both inside and
outside of the legislature.
"As to the merits of the two bills
now before the legislature cOInpdf1-
sons are hard to make. especially to
an outsider. Personally think there
is much to be said in favor of that
feature of the house bill fixing high
order of qualifications for the commits
sionerS who are to be created by the
new act. I think the personnel of the
commission the very soul of the whole
scheme. 1t has been suggested that
it might be hard to find in Kansas men
to fill the appointments. I don't think
SO. But suppose it did, We went to
Missouri for a president of the State
Agricultural college and to Oregon for
a chancellor for the State university.
Washburn college went to Yale for
ita president. Does anybody think
that the regulation and control of
public service property in Kansas, in
volving Enthusiastically billions
of dollars is less important to the well
fare of Kansas than the presidency of
a college?
1.-THE house bill has a further merit
in dealing less in details than any OF
the bills of two years ago. A compre-
hensive grant of power to regulate and
control and to make all needful- rules
to regulate and control, is usually bet
ter than the attempt to enumerate in
advance, all the details of the powers
which the commission is to exercise.
No harm can possibly come from such
broad grant of powers, because only
rates directed by the commission will
be upheld by the courts.
Cloth bills, | fear, are defective in
the paucity of equipment furnished
the commission. While it is not neces-
sary in the bill to specify all the en-
ployees, yet ample provision should be
made for the employment of account
ants, statisticians and clerks, for the
work imposed upon the commission is
simply enormous, and yet both bills
provide for no more help than that
provided for the present board Of rail-
road commissioners.
Il think that a civil service feature
should be incorporated providing that
the accidents of politics and change
in the heads of the commission shall
not affect the employees of the COM
mission. The Santa Fe is able to
secure the services of faithful and eff
ficient subordinates in all it's depart
ments for comparatively small salaries
because such employees are sure of
their positions. Either the public
utilities commission must pay more
money or tolerate an inferior set OF
employees unless something in the
nature of civil service is provided.
1.-The senate bill embodies some fea-
lures which will undoubtedly be in
corporated in the public utilities law at
a later session of the legislature if
they are not incorporated in the law
now.
1.-THE law will be a growth just as
the Interstate commerce act has been
a growth. In 1887 the original act
was considered a radical measure
Looking backward, we know now how
weak and inefficient it was, but today
-.