The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1921-08-31

Leslie Lane, Toorisia Erweiss, H. Cummings, Steven Stells, Peter Lawson, Patrick F1orio, P. Far raro, John Mele, Martin Atamian, Anthony Dil1e11a, Valentino Rug giero, Thomas Pasquale, Patrick Sullivan, Giuseppe Pappacuda, Leopoldo Lantorpio, George Can masso Sabatino, Simon Donate and Luisa Danelio, all of New Haven in New Haven county, state of Connecticut, plaintiffs.
 Against
 Sheridan T. Whitaker, prosecut- ing attorney, city court of New Haven, state of Connecticut; Ed win s. Pickett, prosecuting attor- ney, court of common pleas, New Haven county, state of Connectf- cut; Arnon A. Alling, state attor- ney, New Haven county, state of chief of police of the city of New Haven, state of Connecticut; Rob ert T. Hurley, superintendent of the state police of the state of Connecticut, defendants,
 Before
 Hon. Martin T. Manton, cir suit judge. Hon. Edwin S. Thom- as, and Hon. John c. Knox, dis trict judges holding the court pursuant to *256 of the Judicial code.
 The Counsel
 Robert J. Woodruff, Arthur Klein, attorneys for plaintiffs.
 Robert E. DeForest, Jacob B. Klein, Nattorneys for parties sim ilarly interested.
 George D. Watrous, Walter c. Moves, solicitors for the Connec- ticut company.
 Arnold A. Alling, states attor- ney, Edwin s. Pickett, prosecut- ing attorney, Joseph F. Berry, Seth w. Baldwin, of Counsel.
 Frank E. Healy, Gttorney-gen- eral of the state of Connecticut, counsel for the superintendent of police.
 Sheridan T. Whitaker, for New Haven city officials.
 --' Explanation of Suit.
 This suit is instituted by the several complaints for an in junction seeking to restrain the prosecuting attorneys of the New Haven city and county courts, the chief of police and the city Of New Haven and the superintend- ent of the state police of Connec- ticut, from enforcing a law re- gently enacted in the state of Con necticut, which makes it a penal offense for the compliments to carry on their business as jitney bus carriers. tChap. 77. Public Acts 1921.) The Connecticut company operating trolley lines in the territory affected by this trans portation through jitney service, has appeared by intervention and is now a party to this suit
 The plaintiffs have been en- gagged in the business of operat- ing public motor vehicles in the city of New Haven and own motor buses for this service. They there fore have a property investment in this equipment. They charge a fare to the passengers carried by them. The defendants, except the Connecticut company, are public officials who have, as their duty, the enforcement of the sta- tute which is here considered. The Connecticut Co. Is interested in the litigation for the reason that 1t has franchise, grants and runs trolley cars along the streets of New Haven and adjoining towns and is now in competition with the plaintiffs jitney buses.
 Streets Property of Public.
 The streets are the property of the public. (Davis V. Mass. 167 U. s. 43). They are under the con- trol of the public and therefore subject to the police powers of the state excepting where the power Is OeleSaCed Dy statute upon a. municipality or other agency (Hendrick V. Maryland, 235 U. S. 611; Nolan V. Reichman, 225 Fed. S12). The right to exercise the police power is a continuing one. and may be exercised so as to meet the ever changing conditions and necessities of the public. Those who make investment for this purpose, as the plaintiffs, do so and hold their property and the right to use 1t subject to such other and different burdens as the Legislature may reasonably tm- pose, for the safety, convenience and welfare of the public. The state. legislature may regulate the use, by automobile and motor cars of the highways of the state. (Hendrick V. Maryland, 235 U. 8. SID. It may also authorize muni- cipalities to regulate the use of streets by vehicles and may ex- c1ude vehicular traffic (Barnes v. Essex Co., Park Comm, S6 N. J. Law. 14D.
 What Legislature Provided.
 The legislature of the state of Connecticut by the enactment re- ferred to (Chap. 77. Public Acts 1921) provided for the use of the highways through the granting of licenses for persons situated as are the plaintiffs. It declared the operating jitneys to the restric-