The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-01-13
MELLEN Plan
Ineffective
President Andrew R. Jones, Of
State Business Men, Hits
Commerce Court Idea
INJUNCTION UNDESIRABLE
Declares Utilities Bill Does Not Seek
to Usurp Powers of Direc-
tOratcS.

The letter recently written by Pres
ident Iellen of the New Haven road.
detailing his argument against the
public utilities commission, and his
reasons for favoring a court of COM
merce in its stead, has now been re-
piled to, through a letter to the Con-
necticut Editorial association, by An
drew P. Jones of Danbury, Presi-
dent OF the State Business Mems as
ISOLATION. The State Business men
have drafted a bill. which they are
pushing in the Legislature this year,
and in his reply to President -Mellen
commerce would be ineffective in i'm
portant specific cases, which he al
ludes to, and he also denies that the
business mems bill plans to do what
President Mellen has said he thinks
would be Objectionable on its part.
The letter of President Jones follow:
Danbury, Conn.,,
Jan. II, 1911
Messrs. Everett G. Hill, President,
and Arthur S. Barnes, Secretary,
Connecticut Editorial Association,
New Haven, Conn.,:
Dear Sirs:
I have read Mr.. Mellen's very
wherein he further enlarges upon his
suggestion of court of commerce,
instead of a public utilities commits
sion.
Mr.. Mellens suggestion that it is
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 man
agerial commission; and the bill
which they have drafted for presen-
tation to the General Assembly does
not provide for any such board.
In general, the administrative COM
mission suggested by that bill could
act only in specific cases brought be-
fore it by complaints; in matters es-
sential to safety it could act on its
own initiative. It is given no mana
gerial powers and is not intended to
supplant the directors of public SER
vice corporations, or to usurp any of
their legitimate powers. 1t will be
effective. however, in my opinion, to
protect the public in its dealings with
these quasi-public corporations.
The difficulty with Mr.. Mellen's
court of commerce is that it will not
to insure public safety, adequacy of
service or reasonableness of rates by
broad extension of the present pow
ers of injunction. seems to me both
unwise and impracticable.
If Mr.. Mellen's court of commerce
should find Gas was claimed at the
last General Assembly, that 20 cents
was an excessive trolley fare between
Manchester and Hartford, then, UNI
der Mr.. Mellen's suggestion, It should
correct the abuse by an injunction.
But what would be the form of this
injunction? 1t would not properly
enjoin the corporation from charging
fo,, =
ing the rate, which involves the exer-
else of power which the courts hold
they do not possess and cannot be
given. IF it enjoined the corporation
from continuing to charge an "exces-
sive' 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. 1t it enioined the
corporation from continuing to charge
20 cents the corporation might con-
tinue to charge 10 cents, although any
thing over 10 cents might be excess
sive.
In almost every concrete case Mr.
Mellen's suggested remedy by in
junction will be found to be imprac-
ticable to really cure the existing
evil. Would it not tend. on the con-
trary to increase litigation, with it's
greatly augment judicial legislation
and the much criticised government
by Injunction
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 |
ASSOciat ton