The Bridgeport times and evening farmer. (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1918-1924, 1918-04-16
SIX CENT FARE
DECISION TAKEN
TO The COURTS
Hartford Refuses to Accept
Dictum of Public Utilities
Commission.

The appeal of the city of Hartford
from the action of the public utilities
commission in the matter of the
cent fare, has been filed in the SUI
perior court. The appeal Of the city
when the company advanced the troll
ley fare to cents was made to the
public utilities commission, the claim
being the cent fare was unreasona-
BILE. The commission decided against
the city.
The grounds upon which the ap-
peal is based are that the commission
erred in finding certain facts as to the
prices paid by the Consolidated Rail-
way Co., and by the New York, New
Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. for
certain street railway properties, ac-
Quired by the companies; that the
commission erred in treating the
Connecticut Company as a unit for
the purpose of determining whether
or not the cent fare was reasonable;
that error was made in finding that
the cent fare was reasonable within
the limits of the city of Hartford,
when admittedly certain of the street
| railway lines within the city limits
could be operated profitably on 5
cent basis, and when, so far as ap-
peared from the evidence, all the
street railway lines of the city of
Hartford could be operated at a profit
| on a. cent unit of fare.
1t is further commended that the
commission erred in ruling that the
cent fare was a reasonable fare in
the city of Hartford when the same
fare is all that is charged upon lines
in suburban districts and through
| sparsely settled communities. The
commission erred in holding, it is
averred, in ruling that the Connecti-
| cut Company as a whole must be
taken into consideration on a propo-
sition affecting any branch of it's SER
vice; and that the commission erred
in passing upon the reasonableness Of
the cent fare for Hartford when no
| evidence was offered showing the VAL
| uation Of the plant and equipment or
| the financial operations of the Hart
ford lines separate from the other
lines of the company's system. 1t is
contended the commission erred in not
requiring the Connecticut Company to
| submit data showing the cost of, and
| receipts from operations of the street
railway lines within the limits of the
city of Hartford.
Though the commission found that
the cent fare was not a solution of
| the difficulties of the company. it is
| alleged that the commission erred in
| finding that the cent fare was rea-
sonable within the limits Of the city
| a
facts before the commission from
| which it could accurately determine
whether the Hartford lines were op-
Grated at profit or otherwise. The
commission erred in holding, it is
claimed, that no radical change from
the established system of fare collec-
ton of the company should be made
without study of problems which
the commission found were for the
Connecticut Company itself to pri-
marily solve.
Other alleged errors charged
against the commission are that the
commission erred in finding the pas
senger fares collected in the city OF
Hartford reasonable as levied and col
lected on the zone system now used
by the company, that the commission
erred in failing to require the com
pany to rearrange its zone system
eQuitably with view to fairness tc
all classes of car riders; that the
commission erred in refusing to con
slider the street railway lines in Hart
ford separate and apart from the
other properties of the company with
a view of determining whether or moi
the rate in Hartford was reasonable
that the commission erred in failing
to rule that a cent fare was a rea.
sonable maximum fare within the
limits of the city of Hartford, ant
, lastly that the commission erred il
considering the property of the Con.
necticut company as a whole, notwith
standing the fact that it leases GER
tain lines from the Connecticut Rail
way & Lighting Co. at a fixed rental
and Notwithstanding the further fac
that it has leased certain of it's owned
lines to the Shore Line Electric Rail
way Co.