Norwich bulletin., 1915-02-26
ARGUED FOR EXTENSION OF
 TROLLEY TRANSFERS HERE.
Norwich Delegation Appeared Before Railroad Committee at Hartford.
(Speeial to The Bulletin.N ]

Hartford. Feb. 25.-Mayor T. c. Murphy, Corporation Counsel Joseph T. Tanning, James A. Hiscox and Rob- eft w. Perkins were the representative from Norwich at a hearing before the railroad committee this afternoon on a Dill concerning trolley transfers.
 MT. Tanning stated that it was the hstom in nearly every city in the state for trolley companies to issue transfers to other lines within the city limits, but that custom did not apply m Norwich for the Norwich and Westerly and the New London and Montville lines. but that change was very much desired.
 Mayor Murphy spoke in advocacy of the bill and to strengthen his claim Tor Norwich submitted letters from the mayors of many cities in the state to sAcW that the transfer system prevail Wich.
 President Perkins of the Shore Line Electric Railway company, represent Ing the trolley companies, explained that conditions were different in Nor Wich from those in most cities inas- much as different trolley companies ceTtteFed there. He said the companies had been at great expense during the past two years in an endeavor to give to Norwich the best possible service and could not afford to do anything that would cut down the receipts and expect to further improve the service.
 Mayor Murphy said he was not be- fore the committee asking for Norwich anything that was not granted to other cities, and that the bill was a general one, that could be made applicable to Norwich. He said the present system was a hardship to many of the working people of Norwich and he could see no good reason why the transfer system to the town limits should not prevail with all trolley companies doing busi- ness in Norwich.
 At this point Attorney Kenealy and other lawyers representing the trolley companies suggested that matters of that kind should be brought to the utilities commission rather than the legislature, as it was within their proviRce to adjust local difficulties, if any existed
 Mir Perkins explained that the Nor wich and Westerly and the New Lon don and Montviile were separately owned companies and therefore could not transfer from one line to the other.
 Mayor Murphy then questioned MT. Perkins as to the ownership of the Norwich, the New London, the Nor tic lines and if they were not under the management of MT. Perkins. Ths latter gentleman said they were prac. Ii sally under his management buE that some were leased companies. MT Murphy male a strong plea in favor of
  tute, that would give to the people of Norwich trolley rivileges enjoyed by residents of other cities.
 James A. Hiscox stated instances of what he declared to be injustice in the matter of collection of fares between certain points and the disadvantage in the absence of a transfer system
 Substitute Bill.
 Mir. Tanning stated that he would file substitute bIll which would more cer- tainly include the Norwich and West erly line. The bill before the commit tee was as follows:
 Be It Enacted by the Senate and House
 of Representative in General As
 sembly Convened:
 Section l. Whenever any public service corporation, or any lessee, re = ceiver or trustee thereof, operating diff ferent lines of street cars in any town, city or borough, employs in conducting the passenger service of such lines d system of transferring passengers from ore line to any other of such lines, en- abling passengers to ride without pay ing additional fare beyond any desig- mated place or beyond any meeting point or junction of such lines, every passenger riding upon any of such lines, whether taking passage within or outside of the limits of such town, city or borough, whose fare shall be paid
 
 ton, shall upon requesting the same of the person to whom such fare is paid, be given q transfer or ticket which shall entitle such passenger to ride upon any other of the said lines desig- mated on such transfer or ticket with out any additional payment of fare. subject to the conditions and linlita- tions imposed by said corporation in issuing such transfers.
 Section .. Any refusal by the con- ductor of any car to give such transfer upon request of any passenger whose fare has been paid on said car to said place, meeting point or junction, shall be a misdemeanor and shall be pun ished by a fine of not more than one hundred, nor less than twenty five dol lars, or imprisonment for not more than ten days, or both such fine and imprisonment; and said misdemeanor shall be deemed to have been commit ted by the person or corporation op- erating the car lines mentioned in this aet or the person or persons or off, cials of such corporation having the regulation of the fare to be paid by passengers on said street car lines.