Norwich bulletin., 1917-10-27

tigations; and. secondly, because no men, however able, unless they have the assistance of expert accountants, are competent to conduct such an in- %estigatien. To render a fair decis- ion, in such 8 case. the books of the company must be thoroughly audited by experts.
 It seems to me that the action of the company in increasing the fare without first securing the permission Of the public utilities commission manifests both presumptiye audacity and disregard of public opinion. must submit to a degree of regulation by the state that would be intolerable and unconstitutional in the case of a
 purely private business.
 interest" in a peculiar degree. Not only does it have a monopoly of
 transportation in the section it tra-
 verses, vut it has been granted a a special privilege not possessed by the ordinary citizen. A railway also exercises the right of eminent domain. which means that when private real it possesses the right 10 take it with out the consent or even against the will of the owner upon paying him reasonable price therefor, to bc fixed by a neutral board. For these req sons<a railway. as a common carrier. is very largely subject to public reg ulation.
 Although dissatisfaction at the ac- tion of the company seems to gen orally permeate eastern Connecticut. yet for some reason this section seems woefully behind the residue of the state in regard to measures taken for the protection of the citizens.
 The Connecticut Company, which operates the majority of street rail way lines in the state. gave notice that on October first the fare on it's lines would be increased from i've to six cents. Immediately a storm of disa pproval swept the state.
 The common council of Hartford called a public meeting to hear the opinions of the citizens on the mat ter. The meeting, which packed thee unanimously in favor of reduction in the fare. The council at a special meeting voted to direct the corpora ton counsel to appear before the pub lie utilities commission and oppose the increased fare.
 In New Haven. David F. Fitzgerald. the democratic candidate for mayor, stated that he would do ail in his power to bring about a reduction in the fare. He was elected mayor and lad the distinction of being the first democrat in years to hold that office in New Haven
 The corporation counsel of Bridge port brought a bill for an injunction to restrain the company from charg- ing six cents. The court ordered the company to sell seventeen tickets in took form for a dollar. The purchas- CTS were advised to save the covers a Id if the Public Utilities commission or, on appeal. the supreme court, should find six cents to be Illegal. the company was directed to refund the additional fare upon the surrender of the book covers.
 In eastern Connecticut no such step las been taken. although, instead Of increasing the fare from five tc six cents. it has been increased to seven and nine. Such neglect means that if the supreme court should declare the increase illegal the Shore Line Flee tric company will have illegally taken from the people thousands of dollars.
 Tn Waterbury. the corporation counsel Francis P. Gnilfoyle, brought a petition for an Injunction against the Connecticut Company. but be- fore it was heard the decision in Bridgeport controlled the case.
 There was an ordinance in Water bury which prohibited titneys taking on passengers in front of trolley cars. The common council promptly repeal ed 1t. Such an ordinance exists i' Norwich. The council certainly ought to repeal it. The Shore Line Com pany has displayed little regard for public opinion. Why should the pub lie protect it from competition?
 Why is Eastern Connecticut behind