Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-06-12
Automobile Fees June 10 Reach Of S27SS37
26O95 Operators the Ballots
Ready for the Primary EeconsPubic Utilities Commissions
Contract with Town Disapproved
Furnished Industrial Accident
Insurance Policies National

, The objection Of the commission related
Article five in the commission, which
reads as follows: That it the company
will furnish the Old Academy $50 called)
and the Federal street school with water
free to the aggregate amount OF sl.00U
gallons of water per year, after which,
payment shall be made to the company
in accordance with the regular schedule
rates."
The commissioners in their decision
give their three objections as follows
Section 80 Of the Utilities Act provides
that 1t shall be unlawful for any person,
firm or corporation knowingly to solicit,
accept or receive any rebate. discount or
discrimination in respect to any service
rendered or to be rendered by any public
utility. or for any service In connection
Herewith. whereby any such service shall
in any manner or by any device what
soever, be rendered free or at rate less
than named in the schedules In force
(unless such service is for charitable and
benevolent purposes, In which case, on
application therefor and approval thereof
by this commission, such services may
be rendered free or at reduced rate.)
It is therefore clear that free service by
contract would be unlawful; and that, if
the company desires to furnish free ser
vice under the broad definition Of 'chari-
table and benevolent purposes applica-
ton therefor should be made and this
commission given full opportunity to ex-
anime and pass upon the facts
ITO approve the contract with Article
five in would result in gift to the town
by the company. Many people think that
If water company can be induced or
forced to make low price to a town for
| water to be used for fire protection, or
give water for other municipal purposes,
the town and it's citizens have been imam
proven fallacy. Each water company
must receive for its aggregate service to
the whole public an amount sufficient to
pay all its fixed charges and expenses,
and something more as a fair return on
capital invested. If it renders it service
to certain group free or at less than
cost, it must charge it's remaining GUS
toners an amount greater than would be
the case if all contributed equally. Gifts
by public utilities are wrong in principle,
because they involve discrimination: they
should not be permitted except in de-
monstrable cases of charity and benevo-
lence and they surely have no legitimate
place in contract.
"A contract which contained Article five
would very probably be held void on oc-
count of its being against public policy.
BY public policy is meant that principle
OF the law which holds that no subject
can lawfully do that which has a ten
dency to be injurious to the public or
against the public good. In the present
case, the town lin it's corporate capacity
and the company are not the only inter-
ested parties: CHI customer is interest
ed and has the right to insist that the
company and the town be not permitted
to contract to disobey the law.
LAS before stated, the Importance Of
this matter, in dollars and cents is very
small. But the principles involved are
farreaching and basic. We cannot APP
prove the contract in it's present form
If Article five is omitted. we will ap-
prove. We suggest that the company
and the town enter into a new contract,
eliminating entirely the matter contained
in the Objectionable article, and submit
the same with a new application for ap-
prevail"