Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-03-27
TH0RNE MAKES
4 COMPARISON
RAILROAD COMMISSIONER TELLS
OF TWO UTILITY BILLS IN
LEGISLATURE.
PREFERS HOUSE BILL
Says Senate Bill Is twenty-five Years
Behind in What II Advocates;
Highways Bill on Calendar
Of the House.
TBY ORA WILLIAMS.]

Des Moines, March 26-Public uti
tiles regulation in the interest Of tn
people is the foremost topic of tn
week in the legislature. Senate AM
hous, have separate bills. An analysis
Il the bills by Clifford Thorne and
pointing out of their differences shows
that the two houses are yet far apart
UNFORTUNATELY" said Mr.. Thorne
ut is not correct to say that the com
mittees of the senate and house have
got together on utilities BILL There
are some fundamental differences be
tween the two bills; some of these diff
ferences involve matters SO basic tina
y congress fought for ten years ovel
similar question in our national law
Personally favor the house bill. Prin
cipal objections to the senate bill are
as follows:
u 1.-THE granting of exclusive and per
4 petual franchises goes directly against
the whole trend of modern Legislation
and thought on these matters; in fact
!. our present Iowa statutes absolutely
prohibit any city granting either OF
4 these If an indeterminate permit is
to be granted, there must he some
easy method of terminating it. The
senate bill throws the whole matter IN.
to the courts, state and federal The
method the senate bill, as amended
provides, is that after favorable vote
by the people on the proposition the
commission shall, determine and value,
which shall be 'prima facie fair, rea-
sonable and just In other words
you can appeal to the district court;
you must have the value determined
by condemnation proceedings, with the
accompanying jury trial. The case is
subject to appeal to the supreme court,
and to the federal courts. In order to
see how this works out in actual prac-
tice one has only to contemplate the
experience of Des Moines and her
street railway. Under this plan it will
take years of expensive litigation be-
tore any city can purchase.
when an indeterminate permit is
given it should only be given upon con-
dition that the company valves court
proceedings, and is willing to accept
the commissions findings as final.
without the interminable court pro-
ceedings. The house bill so provides.
Idea is Not New One.
"On all other matters the commits
sion's findings of facts, like those of
jury, should be conclusive, subject to
constitutional and statutory limitations
only The senate bill is twenty-five
years behind the times in this respect.
A quarter century ago when the rail-
road law was being framed for Iowa,
Senator Cummins, then in the legisla-
ture, fought to make the findings of
facts by the commission conclusive;
but the members of the legislature in
IS ted that that could not be done,
They even claimed he was trying to
frame law that would later be de-
clared unconstitutional and thereby he
was seeking to kill the whole PROPOSE
ton. His opponents were successful at
the time.
Senate Bill is Old.
1.-THE same theory that prevailed
then in Iowa prevailed in all the other
states and in congress. This resulted
in tedious court proceedings, gradually |
t. ing the hands of state and national
commissions, rendering them, to all
practical purposes, helpless. Finally
the revolutions started in, eliminating .
In the convention of 1906, in st. Louis, !
over which Gov. Larrabee presided. |
The interstate commerce act was re- |
framed and the supreme court after i
that held the commissions findings
OF facts were conclusive. Then the |
commerce court was born, and it !
thought it could go back and hold the |
commission findings prima face only |
on both law and facts. 1t was only a
few months ago that the supreme court !
finally rettled the matter so far as the
commerce court is concerned, holding
the commissions findings are prima
facie only so far as constitutional and
statutory matters are concerned; and
that it's findings of facts are conclus. |
i've if not in violation Of constitutional |
rights, or not in excess of the statu-
tory powers Of the commission. The
house bill is framed in harmony with !
these ideas. The senate bill has gone
back to the theories of twenty-five i
years.. making the commissions find
ings prima facie as to all things. 1t
would seem that we ought to be able !
to profit by our experience of the past
two decades or more.
1.-THE senate bill devotes eight print
ed pages to definitions. You have to
wade through all these eight pages of |
paragraphs and sub-paragra before
you are sure given company is pub
lie utility. 1t is dangerous when you
come to itemize companies, for you
may leave out some; one example of
this will prove the point, suburban
railroad not going to a town outside a
given city is not included in the list
given in the BILL as public utility
Such extended definitions fixed by
statutory enactment, are always liable
to lead to confusion and ambiguity A
wholesale company not selling to the
public, but to another company which
in turn sells to the public, is not sub
ject to regulation under the bill. I'm
der this arrangement it is very easy
for wholesale company to absorb all .
the profits. This very issue is today
being fought out in California where
they have definition very similar in
the senate bill. The house bill takes
care of this situation.
1.-THE senate bill provides that public
utility is subject to future purchase by
the municipality in which such public
utility is situated At Orange City, an!
electric light plant is situated just out
hide Of the city. Could that city nur-