The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-03-18
ELECTRIC LIGHT
 60. FIGHTS TO
 SAVE PRIvlLE EGE
Bridgeport Go. Opposes Bill In tended to Give Property
 Owners Here Latitude.

Hartford. March 1S-Public ser vice corporations were interested in the matters given a hearing by the Judiciary committee yesterday after noon, especially in House Bill No. TIT repeating Section 3916 of the General Statutes, which gives the electric light companies a monopoly of the busi- ness, according to opponents of the statute, and In House Bill No. 243. the Pardee bill. giving the public utilities commission power to a1- thorize specially chartered corpora lions to amend their charters
 Former Speaker Fillmore 5. San ks, speaking for Samuel H. Wheeler of Bridgeport on House Bill No. T77s re- peaIing Section 3916 of the General Statues, was strongly in favor Of the measure. The legislation was adopt ed in 1898 at a time when the Legis- laHure was easy as to legislation for the special interests. In 1909 an at tack was made on the act, but the opponents were pacified py an amend uaent MT. Wheeler feat that his prop erty was impaired by the measure. He was the owner of tf1e Stratfield Hotel which had it's own lighting plant He would like to supply some other property belonging to him, but is prevented by this act, Tho act ere ated a monopoly. The act was arbi- y around towns of 5000. There was no reason for such action The law ought to repealed for the benefit of the public at large.
 Judge A. B. Beers, representing the United illuminating Companv Of Bridgeport, said 1t wtss 2. question of taxes. MT Wheeler was psrg1ny beside the company hes Judge Beers, was speaking for MT, Wheeler had already connected his property. " hat he wanted was the right to sell else where escaping the burdens his, The motive was purely personal and not one actuated for the public good. The purpose of the law was clear. Towns of 15,00O or less would not have more than one electric light company Another purpose was tes give the people some sense of security in their investments Large sums of money had been invested on the faith of this law Again the ob5ecE was that the General Assembly, should have some control over the users of the street He didn't thInk any thing could be shown to prove that a community had been injured by the law.
 The committee inquired if the law was repealed, whether any one could string wires and poles through the streets. The reply was that In Bridgeport and many ctflea it would be necessary to get the consent of the city.
 Judge ". F Henney for the Hart ford Electric Light Company was op- posed to the repeal E1ectricity was dangerous commodity to handle There was objection to man run ming wires from one side Of the street. to the other. because 1t would allow irresponsible parties to take advan- staga of this dangerous conan odity. ConHagrations might be started from these wires, and nobody liable. be- cause nobody had sufficient responsi- bil1ty to pay. The act simply said unless you get special permission from the Legislature. you keep this dangerous current out Of the high waYs.''s Poles and wires could not be put in the highway without consent of the adjoining proprietor.
 Judge John Walsh of Norwalk fa- vored the bill. He claimed the law was class 1egislati on. The law was amended sso as to give the electric light Companies peg on which to hang the conEtitHtiOnaHty of the act, by saving itSWas an exercise of the police power of the state for the bene- protection of life and property The larger the plant, the cheaper can electricity be produced. Therefore the electric light company needed no protection rom the small u0anuTaG- turar of electricity The only effect would be that Of a check upon the companies.
 Judge Banks said that if the conn Tn1t4ee felt that some law was needed for safety, let it establish one that l would apply tos all and he would have nothing to say. The corpora lions had said nothing here to sub stantiate their claim. except that they had this right and wanted to retain it There was no reason for the law that he knew of The only effect of the law would be to furnish a reduc- ton of rates. Judge Beers had said there was no complaint Of the Bridgeport Company Why there l was nothing else but objection to the gscompany.s
 Representative Taylor asked if there was any law that would prevent the company making a special rate for MT. Wheeler. Now, don't bt shocked by the commercial immoral- ity of the question: I am seeking sole- ly for legal information Judge Banks replied that the company might get into trouble with the pub lie utilities commission. but his own opinion was that that body would make no order that might land it in | the apelIate court. They had not done so yet and he didn't think they would