Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1920-09-27

Y, were re- construed By the Supreme Court
Intermeddling Useless
1T would seem to me that II the
Rapid Transit Co. had the power TO
effect any of the things which It has
asked the Council to do. without the aid
OF the Council, that the unnecessary
intermeddling Of the Council Is not only
useless, but Is frought with the danger
OF precipitsting strong adverse criticism
and abuse Of the Council, as In former
times, with no benefit to the company,
and no aid In the solution of the actual
problems OF transit. It is interesting,
therefore, to note that when the Rapid
transit Company is asking the Council
to amend the provision of the contract Of
l9OI respecting fares, by permitting the
company to abolish transfers. it is ask
ing such right from Council as It for =
merly denied the Council could exercise.
and which involved both the city and the
company in costly litigation. finally de-
cided In favor of the company, and
therefore requiring no further action by
the city.
"The city of Philadelphia never did
contract for transfers. They were only
devices Of convenience to the company.
given where the company saw fit, and
withheld at It's pleasure, and what they
were then they still are with respect to
this contract, and therefore no legis-
lation on your part could prevent the
abolition of transfers, nor be necessary
to such abolition. Further, the words
rates Of fare, as we'll as the word
charge, are all in the act of 1913.
T. L. 1874, establishing the Public
Service Commission, and defining its
powers.
Police Powers Provided
when 1t comes, however, to the con =
sideration of the abolition of the eight
cent fare for a ride and exchange, the
court held that this is "a rate Of fare"
within the meaning of the contract.
Hence, did no other act intervene, the
Council alone could assent to the aboli =
tion of the three cent exchange, but an :
other act has intervened-the act of
1913, and by this all power Is taken
from the municipality that has made a
! contract for a fare to change that fare.
We need not consider whether the mu =
nicipality ever had the right to agree
upon q fare. The roads Of q city are
public highways as much as those Of the
county, and the occupation of those
roads by utilities is not for the use of
the people of the city alone. but for
the people of the whole state. The
power Of bargaining which city had
was the result Of the constitutional pro-
vision that the streets of city should
not be occupied by street railway
company without the consent Of the city.
and from this grew the practice of put
ting such utility companies upon terms,
but the city could only have such pow
ers as were relegated to it by the state,
and these powers could also be taken
away by the state. In fact, the powers
conferred upon the municipality belong
to a class known as police powers.
"In view, therefore, of the fact that
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has
decided that a transfer was not rate
Of fare, and therefore that the company
has the power to discontinue 1t. and that
even IL 1t were a rate of fare the power
to change such rate no longer exists IN
the ordinance of Council subserve? 1t
could not change the fare-the company
would still nave to appeal to the Public
Service Commission. The only use
which the company expects to make OF
1t is to futter It in the face of the com
mission and say, the people of the city
of Philadelphia, as evidenced by the
action OF their Council respecting some
thing over which it had no power. have
expressed their willingness for change
In the rates of fare.
"The Council Is asked to pull the
! company's chestnuts from the fire BY
going beyond Its legal powers to enable
the company to make an argument
which will injuriously effect the rights
Of the people to have their case dis
passsionately heard and adjudicated BY
the Public Service Commission. 1t will
be injecting itself into, controversy In
which it has no legal standing. Past
experience should be its guide at such
a time. It seemed to me that the Coun-
Gil has enough to occupy its attention
with the things which are committed to
it by law, and which the necessities OF
the present day press upon its atten :
ton, without entering upon ab0rtive
legislation intended by the company to
forestall any action which the people
might take, and to smother their OBJ
lection by the specious cry that their
representatives had spoken for them,
The Council could not thus afford TO be.
tray the people, nor would it, feel
sure. assume to represent the people
beyond the power given it by law so
to do.
Won't Extend System
"In conclusion let me call your at
tention to another great and absorbing
fact in the transit discussion. Only
81, 900 900 could be raised by the
change upon which your action is re-
quested. of which $4,000. 900 could he
raised by the abolition of transfers.
matter entirely within the company's
power. But whether $4,000, 900 or
1000, 900 are raised, IL cannot effect
the building Of a single foot Of extension
or furnish a single additional car. and
therefore when the president OF the
company states to you that the in
crease Is for the purpose Of the better.
ment Of the service he must be in error,
for the betterment of the service can
only be effected by capital expenditure,
for which not dollar of the increased
fare could be made applicable. In
creased fare does not take care of the
g