Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1917-06-20

Continued from Page One
drafted, according to the friends Of the
Mayor 20 meet the opposition Of the ''Coun-
try" members. The Mayor did not know
that the amendments made the bills un-
constitutional, according to his friends, until
Doctor Lewis informed him.
Doctor Lewis, who drafted the meas
ures and who is the Mayor adviser on
transit matters, came here with two as
sistant attorneys and held long conferences
with Senator Salus and Jenkins and Repre-
sentative Hecht. At the conclusion Of the
conference he issued a long statement. in
which he reviewed the damage the amend
ments would work IL they are permitted to
remain in the transit bills and il the bills
should pass in their present form.
The amendments were made in the SEN
ate Monday night and yesterday
STATEMENT BY LEWIS
Doctor Lewis gave out the following
statement;
The Sones amendments destroy the tran
sit bills
"The amendment to the Salus bill rem
ders that bill clearly unconstitutional in
view Of the supreme Courts decision in
Ashworth vs. the Pittsburgh Railways (231
Pa. $500
THE amendments to the Hecht bill and
the Hecht constitutional amendment are not
| amendments in any proper sense. They
| change the entire character of the measures,
making them bill and "A constitutional
amendment TO require the people of Phila-
| dephia to pay for all the water in the
stocks of its passenger railway corporations.
THE Salus bill gives the Public Service
Commission power to establish reasonable
rates for exchange tickets and also to es-
| tablsh reasonable through routes where the
facilities of a street passenger railway con-
struCted by a municipality cross or are
| adjacent to a street passenger railway
| line constructed by a corporation As no
municipality except Philadelphia is con-
| structing has the legal power to con-
! struct street passenger railway faciIities
| the bill does not affect any other part or
| the State except Philadelphia. The Sones
amendment, however, in terms confines the
operation of the bill to cities of the nrst
| class 1t is a bill comforting the power TO
| regulate the rates of exchange tickets on
| the Public Service Commission.
In Ashworth vs. Pittsburgh Railways, the
| Supreme Court Of the State expressly held
| that an act regulating the rate OF fare or
| street passenger railway companies In cities
| of the second class was unconstitutional
as local and special legislation.
"In short. as under our state Constitu-
| tion, legislative regulations Of passenger
/ railway rates Of fare must affect all cities
within the state alike, it is impossible to
regulate rates in one class of cities to the
| exclusion Of the other classes.
"The Hecht bill as reported from the
! Senate committee gave to cities of the first
| class the right to acquire by condemnation
! proceedings the facilities and tranchlses
! Of their street railways corporations As
| reported to the Senate. IL gave to the Pub
| lie Service Commission the right to deter
| mine the just and reasonable amount which
| the city should pay for the facilities and
| franchises of its street passenger railways
| companies and to divide the amount
| awarded among the different corporations
| interested as owners and lessees. In Nalu-
| ing the property, the bin followed the exact
| wording of the Public Service Company
! law i'm requiring the commission to con-
! slider every fact, matter or thing Whlch, III
| its judgment, may or does have any bear
ing on the fair amount of compensation 10
! be paid.
The commission would have been re.
| duired to give such consideration to the
! amount in market value for the stocks and
| bonds as should be just and reasonable. The
| bill also provided that each company, while
| it might receive more, could not receive less
! than the amount paid in on its capital stOcl
| and invested in the facilities and franchises
| taken AS thus drawn the bill was emf
nently fair to every interest concerned.
THE Sones amendment entirely change!
the character Of the measure From a bill
giving the city power to acquire tn,
franchises and facilities Of its street railway
corporations, it is converted into a bill t,
condemn the majority of the capital stool
of the corporations owing or leasing tn
franchises and facilities In my opinion,
| bill giving the State a municipality tn
right to acquire by condemnation the stool
| of a corporation would be unconstitutional
But whether constitutional or not, thi
, Sones amendment expressly provides tina
in no event shall the amount Of compensa
. tion or damages be less than the presen
value, arrived at by capitalizing the renta
reserved under any existing lease
WATER IN RENTALS"
'The water In the underlying companie
is in the enormous rentals paid by the p.
} T. The payment by the =, r. T.. in exces
Of a fair return on the amount invested b
the underlying companies has been var
d ously estimated, but is about S4,0OO,OOO
e year. The capitalized value of this rent
e is between $7b,0OO,O0O and 500, 100000.
t is this sum which the amendment wou
8 force the city TO pay for water.
: "The Public Service Commission, instes
) of having the right to fix a just and reasoi
= able sum as the value of the properties Wi
g a right of appeal by either party to Il
D, courts would be required TO compel Il
$ city to pay for all this water The bill thu
?. becomes worse than useless and is an insu
|. and mockery TO the citizens of Philadelphi
d "The socalled Sones amendment 10 Il
IT Hecht constitutional amendment is of Il
r same character as the amendments TO Il
n Hecht bill The amendment as drafted al
Al as reported by the Senate judiciary Gener
? Committee was designed to give the city
borrowing capacity sufficient to enable II
pay the purchase or condemnation price
Philadelphia's street passenger railway
The Sones amendment would strike out 4
L entire Hecht amendment as drafted, su
), stituting an entirely dinerent amendme
+ giving the city the right 10 borrow mon
d 10 acquire the capital stock Of street passe
a ger railway corporations as Distinguish