Norwich bulletin., 1915-04-21
(continued from Page One


 nicipal management and advocated delay in any legislative action. This matter is too new for legislative ac- taxes to state and town and drivers are licensed, and there should be no taxation. It is not class legislation to tax trolley roads, he said, but to se- lect a certain class who carry pas sengers for hire Is class legislation. the street and ought to be taxed.
 Jltnsys Have Taken Insurance.
 John D. Tobtn, of Waterbury, rep resentfng titney owners. said those he represented had fully taken insurance poor trolley service in Waterbury and all cars do not stop for passengers. but the jitneys will stop wherever there as @ passenger. Four weeks ago there were three jitneys and now there are S6. The Connecticut company is to devour the little jitney The Con necttcut company did not oppose the taxicab for their fare was 50 cents The poor men could not ride in the taxi, but they can in the jitney. MT. Tobin believed it a purely local mat ter. The only reason any bill should go through is because the Connecticut company wants 1t.
 Attacked Connecticut Company.
 Charles M Robinson of New Haven opened with an attack upon the Con- necticut company. and referred to the bill before the committee and those in other states, which he said comes from the same source. No one asks for legislation except the Connecticut company. This jitney business is not year born and it is evident that the Nav1r- Ar%&I I4Ta< sAc, birth. The Connecticut company asks for absolute monopoly of street pas senger traffic by driving the jitneys away. He said no $3,0o0 bond could be secured and any such measure was prohfbitive.
 Jitney Common Carrier.
 A common carrier is one who car ries. Every jitney is already a com mon carrier and fully licensed in the city of New Haven. If the measure prevails, one must buy his own auto mobile. walk. or ride in a trolley car. If there was no public demand for jit- neys they would not exist. The state ment that the receipts of the trolley companies would be diminished he said was not true, and gave instances of places where men could, with the jit- ney, ride back and forth from their work at dinner time.
 Fares from strap-Hansers. The trolley company wanted to con- tinue to collect profit from strap hang CTS and running board riders. The real situation is problematical, and if the trolley companies give adequate service. the jttneys will go out of bus iness for the trolley can be run cheap e per mile than can the jitney. The i.tney man is already paying his share -t' taY9tiNn He did fhirlx ho fI1ittee should recommend anything in the subject of jitneys.
 Opposed Jitney Legislation.
 John W. Wallis, of New Haven. op- posed jitney legislation from the con- sumers' standpoint. He was opposed to giving power to regulate to muni- cipalities and no one seemed to ask for projection except the Connecticut company-to protect their own mon- opoly. The people are more in dan. ger of trolley cars than from jitneys Let the trolley company put fender boards around the wheels of their cars and not make faces at jitneys. The Connecticut company wants to kill the tits before they are born. He criticis- ed the charge of five cents to those who use the cars regularly, no less than is paid by strangers and believed in reduction in fare for short rides, as as the present f1ve-cent fare was a monopoly rate. This rate means g present to the trolley company. The spread of jitney is a gold mine indicating that five cents is a monop- oly rate and the jitneys are taking ad- vantage of it. In the name of horse sense. he asked that the jitneys be left alone for two years, at least. Neutral Statement. Alderman Daniel Riley, of New Ha-