Evening journal., 1912-03-06

or calculated to provoke animosity on
the part 'of the latter While the
utility board protested itself ready TO
hear from the traction company
defence on the facts tending to show
straight five cent fare was only
reasonable. Monaghan's complaint did
not charge that such q fare was un-
reasonable, no rules or principles OF
procedure had been adopted by the
board, and it, through it's counsel, had
absolutely refused to give any consid-
Grafton TO the chartered rights of the
traction company, whatever they
might be. The traction company was
thus placed In an ntOlerable and
practically impossible position. Know
ing that any appeal IL might take
would be heard and determined by the
superior court ION the merits of the
matters forming the basis OF the
order" and having been arbitrarily,
Intentionally and wrongfully denied
any consideration by the utility board
Of the chartered rights upon which il
relied, il was justified in declining to
put in only a part of it's defense.
Under the circumstances, its course
was reasonable and sensible, and
such as would have been pursued by
any one intending not to be preclud-
ed from an assertion of his rights in a
proper tribunal
lt does not appear that any mem
Der of the utility board possessed oX-
perience, special training or informa-
ton rendering him competent to form
a reliable opinion upon the reason
ableness or unreasonableness of "a
straight five cent fare" the court says.
Il Is obvious that the fact that another
trolley line may have sold six tickets
for twenty-five cents is wholly incOn-
elusive. Excellence of service. COM
mOdiousnoss of cars, cost of construc-
tiQn and many other factors repre-.
senting varying conditions may rem
der a price for tickets which is wholly
reasonable in the one case, unreason
able in the other.
| An examination of the ailidayits hat
produced the conviction that Il is q
least very doubtful whether straigh
five cent fare is unreasonable.
But here the proceedings before In
utility board, far from being due pro
cess of law. were travesty upo
Justice; and upon the board and nc
the Superior Court devolved "fna
legislative action"
AS the Superior Court on appeal i
confined to the record of the pro
ceedings before the utility board a
certified by its secretary, and the ap
peal must be heard and determine
"on the merits of the matters form
ing the basis Of the order" it is evi
dent that the traction company
not permit d by the utility board &
present by way of defense to "a prim
facie case" made against il matter o
law or fact deemed by it essentia
as affecting the merits. as appears &
have been the case here. IL woul
naturally be deferred from taking a
appeal. even We're it necessary
take one under ordinary circum
stances before proceedings in the cir
cult court of the United States to el
join the order.
Further, the character Of the rec
ord of the proceedings before tn
utility board was such as might ais
have some effect in deterring th
traction company from taking an az
peal.
Judge Bradford quotes the afiidaN
Of Herman b Bothum. secretary
the Board of Public Utilities Commi
sioners that he kept an accurate a
count of the material things dol
and said at such meeting;' that
did not transcribe all that was sa
i'm the discussion upon the subject b
fore the board" but did take dow
and make notes OF all things Of al
importance"
The court adds: 1T does not a
pear that the afiiant, Bothum is
lawyer Of possessed qualification
enabling him to determine what DC