Perth Amboy evening news., 1914-06-30
DECISION FOR
FREE ER|DES FOR
C0PSRESERvED
Special to the EVENING NEWS.

Trenton, June 30:-The appeal of
the City of Perth Amboy from the
judgment of the supreme court set
ting aside an order of the Board of
Public Utility Commissioners requir-
ing the Public Service Railway Com
pany to carry all policemen and paid
hremen of the city, while on duty, on
its trolley cars free of charge. was
argued before the Court of Errors
and Appeals yesterday afternoon.
Joseph e. Stricken argued the case
for Perth Amboy; Frank Bergen, of
Elizabeth, appeared for the Public
Service Railway Company, and
Frank H. Sommer, counsel for the
Public Utility Commission, submitted
written brief to the court Decision
was reserved
The case involves three ordinances
enacted by Perth Amboy granting
franchise to the Public Service Rail-
way Company and exacting condi-
tion requiring that all policemen and
paid firemen, while on duty, should
be permitted to ride free of charge.
The city complained to the Utility
Commission that the Public Service
Company refused to comply with this
condition, and the commission, after
hearing, ordered the company to
comply. The company obtained a
writ of certiorari upon which the
supreme court set the order aside.
Then the city appealed to the court
of errors.
The case turns chiefly upon the
question of whether the passage of
the Public Utility act nullified the
condition of the ordinances. The
argument on behalf of Perth Amboy
was to the effect that from the early
days of street railways it has been
the legislative policy of this state to
require the consent and permission
of the municipalities to the construc-
tion OF these roads in the public
highways 1t has likewise been the
legislative policy, counsel argued, OF
this state from the beginning, to con-
fer upon the municipalities power to
impose conditions upon the grant of
the municipal consent and permis-
sion to the construction of street
railways in the public highways.
1.-THE broad argument advanced In
support of the judgment below"
counsel argued, SIS that the legisla-
ture has now suddenly abandoned, as
to the future, this state policy which |
for more than half a century has
been declared in legislation and ad- |
judication, and has at the same time |
stricken down the |
thousands of varied conditions which, |
under such policy, the municipalities
have in the past attached to their
grants of consent and which cOndi- |
tions the governing bodies of the
deemed the public in
terest to require"
1t was further contended that the
enactment of the Public Utility act
did not nullify the section of the
Perth Amboy ordinances providing
Tor this free transportation, and that
the service to be rendered was free
from discrimination, as it's benefits
are afforded alike to all who come
within the class created by the condi-
lion. 1t was insisted that the Public
Utility Board had ample jurisdiction
TO issue the order; that there was
sufficient evidence to sustain the
order, and that the order was suffl-
GENTLY definite.
Mr.. Bergen combatted all these
arguing first that the
order was not within the jurisdiction
If the board He insisted that the
passage of the utility act abolished
he right of free transportation con-
aimed in the ordinances. Mr.. Bergen
claimed that the order of the Utility
Board Is unreasonable and void be-
,ause it is indefinite.