Norwich bulletin., 1915-04-21
HEARING AT HARTFORD BEFORE
 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
WAS A SPIRITED SESSION
Counsel for Connecticut Go. Maintained Jitneys Should Be Taxed and Regu- lated the Same as TrolIeys-Owners of Jitneys Attacked Trolley Com panies for Service Given and Their Attitude Toward the Public.
Especial to The Bulletin.)

Especial to The Bulletin.)
 Hartford, April 20.-The judiciary committee gave public hearing Tues day afternoon in the hall of the house of representatives. to a first time hear ing on the regulation of the jitney ser vice. There was an attendance of oyer 300, the great majority being directly interested in the new mode of public travel, and who were opposed to leg islation of any description that would in any way affect the jitney. At the opening Senator Isben, chairman of the committee, stated that an act cov- ering the jitney matter was with the committee, but he said that the com mittee was desirous of receiving in- formation on the subject. regardless of the regulations presented in the bill. It was stated that the bill pre- sented by the Connecticut company. as a basis for discussion, provided that a bond of $3000 for each jitney be filed, that license fee be paid in ad- dition to the registration fee, and that towns be authorized to specify charges to be made and the routes to be tra- versed and that the measure be in eff feet 20 days after It's passage.
 Counsel for Connecticut Go.
 Harry C.. Day, representing the Con- necticut company, said he was in favor of regulating and not restricting the jitney, and suggested the adoption of measures that had been passed in other states. The business of public carriers is governed by the state and properly so, and the jitneys should be included. He referred to the taxes paid and for the large amount expend- ed in street paving, oiling. repairs and taxation which amounted to nearly $900000, by trolley companies. If the jitneys are to compete with street railways they should be placed on a like basis.
 No Chance for Both to Survive.
 There is no chance for the jitneys and the trolleys to both survive, for if this unfair competition is to con- tinue, one or the other must be with drawn. He referred to the troIleys be- ing required to operate from early in the morning until late at night and on routes that are unprofitable, while the jitneys have go-as-you- please system, and operate only when the jitney owners see fit, and can discon- tinue service in unfavorable weather. He said the jitneys should be under state and municipal control just as are the trolley lines.
 Unfair Competition.
 | The dissatisfaction of overcrowded cars during the rush hours cannot be relieved by the jitneys While the troll ley cars are required to run according | lO SIdlS ulell1OLI, S1Ne U dIlS10IS. anu maintain improbable lines. the jitneys are not rejected or restricted. If jit- neys are to compete direct with troll 1 leys this unfair competition should not be permitted.
 Jitneys Should Be Bonded. The jitneys should be bonded to meet damages as a protection to the public and if operated from town to town they should be under the direc- 1 ton of the public utilities commission l just as are all other public carriers | In cities where the jitneys are operated a reasonable license fee should be col 1ected in addition to the state regis 1 tration fee. Trolley companies are l obliged to pave streets and do not use the pavement, while jitneys do and 1 they ought to pay a part of the cost. | Trolleys Operate in UnprofitabIe Sec tions.
 The jitney may prove a powerful
 competitor on short rides, cut into the | receipts materially, but the trolley companies must under state law oper- ate in unproftable sections. MT. Day submitted to the committee a brief l of what he said, and also copy of | the Rhode Island proposed law, which ! was drawn by the city solicitor of the l city of Providence, which features the bondin~ of jitney drivers in an amount sufficient to meet liability in the event
 
 of each jitney and the qualifications | of the drivers. In Tennessee the jit- neys are classed as common carriers and treated as such in law. Without I regulation or restriction the jitneys will not operate over unprofitable l routes and the public much of neces- | sity suffer inconvenience.
 Leo Davis of Norwaik. Leo Davis, of Norwalk, representing the Norwalk Chamber of Commerce, said he was opposed to any legisla- l tion against the jitney service. He at | tackled the methods of the Connecticut company and referred to the water stock of the company. He favored the cities and the towns, not the state, to l regulate the jitneyS. People of Nor walk asked for an extension of ser vice of the Connecticut company, but were told their charter would not per- init of the proposed extension. He said the Connecticut company has been an insult to the people of the state and now when the little jitney appears the company cringes and ap- peals to the state for protection. It | ley with the Connecticut company. MT. Davis read the vote of the Nor walk Chamber Of Commerce executive committee which favored the jitney competition with the Connecticut com pany. He said he voiced the sentiment of every municipality where trolley cars are operated. The conservative people of Connecticut, he said, will
 take proper care of the jitney matter at the next session of the legislature,
 if necessary, until then he implored the committee not to favor jitney leg islation.
 l Opposed to Bond Clause. Warren Lewis of Waterbury. who represented Waterbury jftney com- pany, said the company had already taken insurance precautions for the safety of the public and the stockhold- CTS of the company as well. He op- posed the $3,G00 bond clause and be- | lieved it to be unconstitutional if ap- piled only to jitneys He favored mu-
 fcontinued on Page six)