The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1921-07-22
DECISION BY
 JUDGE KEELERIS
 AGAINST BUSES

yesterday afternoon in New Haven county superior. court, casts a blan- ket or gloom over the jitneurs and their friends, for the injunction is de- nied, and it begins to look as though a great many jitneymen are going to take an enforced vacation of at least several months.
 Jitneymen throughout the state are all set for the midsummer drive of the police,t the Public Utilities Commis- sion and the Connecticut company. A few shirmishes have been indulged in the last week with the trolley com pany hurrying up reinforcem ents, and getting a few spies behind the lines in the nature of jitney buses of its own. The first concerted attack is expected to fall on the battle line covering all of New Haven, and the route to, and including Derby, for the authorities of these two towns by na- ture or wordy barrage put over Tuesday at the injunction hearing in New Haven made it plain that arrests would immediately follow the decis- ion.
 Other places in the. state indicate that present lines will be held for the time being, especially in Bridgeport, Norwalk and New Britain, where it seems certain that the jitneynen will be allowed to hold their present pos ftions, at least until the Public Utili- ties Commission formally takes the lead and forces the arrests. Wher- ever the blow first falls, the matter will be fought to a final conclusion and Brid geport jitneurs hope the on- City court appeal in the Elm city could be handled by the August term of Common Pleas court in time for the appeal to be brought to the at- TOTS the coming fall.
 Judge Keeler's decision is entitled: ''New Haven-Derby Bus Corporation vs. Sheridan T. Whitaker, city attor-. ,HA a1S In cision follows in part:
 Chapter TT of the Public Acts of 1921 (the jttney law) is attacked for unconstitutionality in its various that the act provides no penalty for breach of it's provisions. This claim does not go into the constitutionality of the act. The claim is not in itself well grounded.
 What the Act Provides.
 The act provides that any person violating any order, rule or regula- ton established in accordance with its provisions or any provisions here of shall be fined or imprisoned or both. The words quoted, clearly re- late to the express provisions of the act, as distinguished from the order etc, referred to in section 8. Unless this value is given them the words mean nothing and become merely repetition.
 'The second ground alleges that the act grants special privileges to cer- tain classes of persons and the third grounds alleges that the act deprives the plaintiff of equal protection of the laws. There does not seem to be anything in the specific provisions of the statute, which is obnoxious to these objections. It is provided that any person may operate a jitney route, where he is found to be a proper per son and the route proposed is one of convenience and necessity. The de- termination of these questions is left to the Public Utilities Commission It is undoubtedly true that the question of convenience and necessity is in- tended to be determined with refer ence to other existing means of pass enger transport but that can hardly The latter exists by virtue of estab- lishment in accordance with law, and stheir existence is merely an element in determining convenience and ne cesSfty.
 Ut is claimed that jitney operation and jitney routes are constitutionaI1y exempt from regulation. The extent of this legislative. power can hardly be held to exclude the action by means of a commission even though the es- tablishment of such regulation goes to the extent of considering proper routes in connection with existing fa- c1Ift1es. An electric street railway has to obtain similar permission in order to operate. The two grounds of objection lack merit.
 No Property Taken.
 The fourth ground of objection is that the legislation takes the plain tiff's property without due process of law. Clearly no tangible or visible property of the plaintiff is so taken. let 1t is true that in some cases the franchise or an established business is regarded as property and protected by the constitutional provisions. This act takes away no franchise from the plalnt1n-it never had any.
 The fifth objection alleges that by means of the operation of the act the plaintiff is deprived of the use of the highways for lawful purposes, while other persons are given privileges de- nied to 1t. This contention leaves out or account the fact that this sort of occupation is affected by a public in terest and. where such is the case, the occupation. The authorities for th1s position are too well known to need citation. This sort of jurisdic- tlon has been uniformly upheld and as constitutional means of refuta- ton. These objections, therefore, did not successfully challenge the consti- nationality of the statute.
 Ine sixth ground of objection the commission legislative and sjudi- ciai powers. It by no means follows that the act Is therefore obnoxious to any constitutional provision. The +Lo ot Iuies anu IeSu4dllons. ana the decision of questions of fact, is an ordinay function of administra- tive boards and commissions The act Is not unconstitutiona1 for this reason.
 The seventh and eighth objections potn go to the same point, that is that the commission, innsofar as it exerclses the powers conferred by the statute, is vested with arbitrary power violative of constitutional rights. It IS urged that action under the statute IS arbitrary because the act itself fur nlshes no definite standard, in that the words convenience and necessity nave no such content as words and no exact definition in the act. Never theless any competent board or com mission can with reasonable accuracy ana Justice make a fair decision whether convenience or necessity ex- ist.
 The ninth ground of objection states the claim of arbitrariness at a