The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-06-06
THE FARMER: JUNE 6. 1911


 The people have asked for bread, and the majority of the Committee have | given them stone. These so-called | public utility commissions limited as they are to polite recomm end ations, are a farce, and if they are created | by this General Assembly in response to the universal demand of the Con- necticut people for an honest and eff fect1ve scheme for the regulation of | the Public Service Corporations, it will be an insult to the intelligence of your constituencies
 Do the majority of the Committee give any business reasons for their report? Not one-neither in Commit tee deliberations nor in public discus sion have I heard one reason advanc- ed why the small State of Connecticut. with all its railroads and trolleys un- der one management all it's gas, cleo tric light, water, and telephone pro- tected within their different spheres of activity, should have two Commis- sions, nor have I heard one reason advanced why the Commissioners rep resenting the State should be depriv- ed of the power to direct what should be done instead of the mummery that has been devised in the majority bills.
 Is there reason, then, for two com- missions? And is there a reason for withholding any decent degree of pow CT from them? Yes, there is certainly
 
 advanced.
 Stripped of all verbiage, the reason is that the New Haven Road having rested snugly within the embrace of the Railroad Commissioners, for a quarter of a century or more 1t does not desire to be disturbed, nor does it desire to make the acquaintance of these new and strange faces upon the Utility Commission, and particularly so if they are to be s5,O00 per annum | men, and selected by an Executive who will be attentive to his oath of office.
 That is the reason, and the whole reason, for two Commissions. As to their powers of recommendation, in- stead of order, the reason that feature is devised by the public service cor porations IS too manifest for debate. | If such a law Is passed, 1t will be 1 a base surrender of our manhood at | the behest of the corporate interests | of the State.
 No argument can be addressed against a single provision of the mi- | nority bill.
 The paid agents of the public service | corporations raised hue and cry as | to the constitutionality of the powers granted to the Commission to pass up- on the reasonableness of the rates charged in any given case, whether re- | 1ating to freight, passenger, telephone, gas, water or electricity.
 Of course, this claim was not made | in good faith. No one with any fa- miliarity with this subject. as 1t has | been developed under the Interstate l Commerce Commission in Federal re- l lations, or under the State Commis- sions in many of our Sister States. could entertain the least, doubt of the 1 power of a State through its appoint | ed agencies, to regulate the rates charged by virtue of franchises that came from the people. nor could any reasonable distinction be made between the power to regulate the subject of service and that of rates.
 This brazen claim of unconstitution | a1ity was put to rest in few words by. the Governor of the State who ap- | proves of the minority bill. That the Governor says that the mil nority bill is constitutional is not con- | elusive, even though he is undoubted- | ly the highest authority on constitu- | tional law in our State, and one Of | the few Connecticut lawyers whose fame has extended far beyond the bor | ders of our own commonwealth. The l opinion however, of the Supreme Court of the United States Is conclu- sive and that highest judicial tribun- al of the land has held in unequivocal language that State has the power to regulate the rates charged by it's public service corporations.
 l cannot e1npndSlZe lHlS punt DcltSI than by quoting from Governor Bald win. He said in a public interview that was published May 27th, as fol- lows:
 For more than thirty years it has been the settled doctrine of the Su- preme Court of the United States, that so far as the United States Con stitution was concerned, not only did a State have a right reasonably to limit the amount of charges by Rail- road Companies for the transporta- tion of persons and property within it's jurisdiction. but that right couldn't be granted away Or extfnguished by it's Legislature unless by clear and positive words
 This position was, perhaps explain ed as fully as anywhere in the Min nesota case decided in 1890. Mime sota passed a statute creating a rail- road and warehouse commission, and gave it power to fix railroad rates and declared that it's action should be final and conclusive as to the reason ableness of such rates. The Chica- go Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Co.,, brought suit to test all this, and the Court said the only trouble was that the Legislature had endeavored to make rates fixed by the Commis- sion conclusive and that as the Com mission had no Judicial functions and did not proceed judicially, it amount ed to QepTlNdLlOH OI lHc equal pro- lection of the laws. If other persons, they said are to receive reasonable profit on their invested capital then railroads must be equally protected.
 The minority bill provides an appeal from the action of the proposed pub- lie utilities commission to the Super for Court on the merits, and the Courts. therefore, will have a chance to decide judicially whether any rates that may be fixed are reasonable or unreasonable. This seems to me to satisfy the Constitution.
 also like the features of the bill which further economy and admins tration. have not read the ma jority bill.''
 Tn the case of Reagan vs. Farmers Loan & Trust Co.,, 154 U. S., 393, the Supreme Court of the United States said:
 "There can be no doubt of the gen. fares and freights which may be charged and received by railroad or other carriers, and that this regulation can be carried on by means of com mission"
 I regard the concluding sentence in the Governors interview as somewhat cruel to the majority of the Commit tee. It may be read to speak vol umes.
 However, since that interview the Governor has read over the majority bills and I am authorized to quote him as giving his endorsement to the minority, rather than the majority re-