Perth Amboy evening news. [volume] (Perth Amboy, N.J.) 1903-1959, 1920-03-19
MOVE AGAINST
UTILITY BOARD
Jersey City's Charges Filed
Today With Governor Likely
to be Base for Removal.

TRENTON. March 19-Formal
Edwards today against the State
Board of Public Utility Commission
ers on behalf of Jersey City. on
which. 1t Is believed. the governor will
center his fight TO Dust the present
state board. The charges which were
signed by John Milton, corporation
counsel of Jersey City; Marshall Van
Wrinkle and George l.. Record, special
counsel, follow:
The Public Utility statute intended
that tho board should act as an ad-
ministratlve body representing the
public and enforcing public rights in
relation to public utility corporations,
instead of which 1t has assumed to
act as a court. with the result that
the proceedings intended to be
prompt, expeditions and economic.
have become formal. prolonged and
unduly expensive. A conspicuous ex-
ample Is cited.
The board showed its bias in IA
vor of the Public Service Railway
Company by employing as the boards
own experts three men whose prtn-
cipal employment professionally is on
behalf of public service corporations
in other parts of the country. and
who in such service had committed
themselves To principles Oh NdiudtiOh
held by the public service corpora
ton and opposed by representatives
of the public. Two of these men have
been employed by the Public Service
Corporation The names of these men
and some details of their employment
are submitted in the charge.
The board allowed the Public
Service Railway Company to divert
100000 from the depreciation re-
a 4txril do nd flNa
Public Service Gas Company to di-
vert 100000 in the same way, in di-
rect violation of the statute.
The board, when advised of this
wrongful diversion, failed to compel
the companies to restore the money.
The board has fixed a return of
eight per cent. for the Public Service
Electric Company, while limiting
other small and less influential COM
panies to six per cent. and even less.
In the Public Service Electric
Company case the board ordered a
valuation in 1911. They finished the
valuation in 1915 at cost of more
than $4,000, nevertheless they have
allowed the case to drag along un-
finished until the present time.
That the board in the Public Serv-
ice Electric case allowed rate per-
mitting dividends to be paid, and re-
fused to do so in the Public Service
Railway rate case. This charge sub
mits in detail specifications showing
how the board has failed to properly
conduct the Public Service Railway
case by delaying the valuation of the
companys property, by failing to
limit the company to six per cent as
a return, by directing the company to
give children in Newark q special
rate and not compelling the company
to extend the same privilege to chill
dren in other municipalities; that the
zone fare experiments were unneces-
sary, premature. should never nave
been made prior to making Valua-
ton Of the company's property. were
put in force contrary to the require
ments of the statute as to a proper
hearing, and were continued in face
OF the demand by the company and
the public for return to the nat
rate, and that the zone fare II adopt
ed should not have been applied uni
formly to all parts of the state aA
sections: that the principle of the
zone fare, that the car rider should
pay according to the cost OF his ride,
was precisely opposed to the princi-
ple adopted in the Trenton case,
where the city car rider was made to
pay an excess fare to make up the
deficit on suburban lines.
In the Public Service Railway case
the board failed to conduct the case
in the. public interest. Detailed spec
tfication as to unnecessary delays anu
as to fixing zone fare rates with the
resulting confusion and public disfav-
or are given.
That the board in relieving the
company from its five cent municipal
ordinance contract should have ex'
acted under the bargaining power
conferred by the statute. conditions
necessary to protect the public inter,
est, which are specified under eigh
detailed subdivisions. That the board
improperly allowed the sum OF $500
600 as an appropriation TO deprecia'
ton reserve. That the board put the
representatives OF the cities to very
great expense, owing to the uncertali
and vacillating manner In whach !,
has conducted the valuation case aho
its failure to frame a dellnite Issut
for trial. That the board threw upon
the cities the expensive task OF cIeth
ing up the valuation made Tor tht
company by Mr.. Cooley. which tasR
should have been assumed by thf
board in behalf of the general pupilc
That the board allowed the Public
Service Railway Company to disre-
gard the contract between Newark ana
tho Newark Terminal Railway Com
many afterwards merged In the Pubhc
Service Railway Company, made pur--
suaht to chapter 1876 of the Laws oil
|1913. which contract limited the com
pany in transfer charges. and which,
bein~ made under statute passed
ubs 3 mt to the Public Utility Statute
of 10, was not covered by the decis-
ion OF the court holding that the board
could disregard municipal contracts
made prior to the passage Of the Act
of 1911. -------
That the board allowed Srl unreason
able discrimination against the public
In compelling the railway company to
charge a lower rate Of fare to children
In Newark and allowing the company
to charge a higher rate OF fare 70
children In other municipalities
That the board has allowed funds
appropriated by the legislature. which
could have been and ought to have
been devoted by it to the valuation
Of the Public Service property to lapse
and be returned to the public treas
ury.
(Continue1 on page 50
r.. & L. Sample Shoe Store again open foI