Putnam patriot., 1921-07-15
BuSSeS Operating To-day
 In Spite Of State LaU
PELLETT ORDERS OPERATORS TO RUN JTTNEYs UNTIL ARREsTED--HAs APPEALED.-MAYoR MARCY
 AND DANIELsoN AUTHORITIES TAKE NO ACTION
Brothers Discontinue Service Day Eayuch lneon- venienee Caused-Troleys Resume Hourly Service
 To Relieve Situation.

Departments concerned are ready to authorize and issue licenses. active enforcement will be asked from all the police authorities throughout the state
 "The law of 1921 created d new classification, voided the old. and re- quires new license in accordance with the new definitions"
 The Pellett appeal was filed last Friday by F. L. Darbie of Danielson and J. F. Carpenter of Putnam. at torneys for Mr Pellett. The case will come before the September term of the Superior court in Windham county. The attorneys stated g req sons of appeal. The most important grounds. stripped of technical terms, were: tA. that the commission had no right to eonstrue the statute as prohibtory and that the state in pro hibiting continuance of an established line of jitneys. acted in derogation of property rights and in derogation of common rights ant. in violation of the constitution ef the state and of the United States; t2). that the general assembly had no right Co delegate the prohibition of an established line of jitneys from continuing to operate and run to public utilities commission.
 The five principal causes for appeal are given az follows
 Because the commission erred in assuming that convenience and neees- sity did not require the establishment of jitney route whenever another transportation company operates over a portion of such route.
 Because it was proved to the com mission and the commission found that before and since early in 1919 the limited service rendered. and now being rendered hy the trolley lines, would be inadequate to supply the re- quirements of any of the section or territory covered by the jitneys in the absence of the jitneys, and the commission has found that the appli- cant has maintained good iitney service over all said routes on an es- tablished and satisfactory schedule and supplied a necessary service, and the applicant proved to the commis- sion that he had made an outlay or investment of over S2a 900. in jitneys alone. irrespective of repairs and oth- CT expensive service. and the appli- cant had an established and going business at the time of filing of said application and for about two years previous to the day of the hearing thereon, and has legitima.sly and in compliance and in accordance with the law and statutes of this state, has SO operated such jitney service over said lines: and the refusal of the com- mission to grant the applicant said certificates K not within the due and proper exercise of the police power of the state. or is agents. in the matter, but is conhseatory and in derogation of his property rights and in deroga- ton of common right and in violation of the constitution of the State of Connecticut and the constitution of the United States.
 Because the commission erred in not finding. at the applicants request and in accordance with the evidence produced by the Connecticut Com pany. that the said trolley line within said territory had not made profit in any year since it's operations were commenced.
 Because if the state. by the General Assembly or constitutional law mak- ing power, has the right to prohibit said established line of jitneys from continuing to run and operate, it had no right to delegate that power of prohibition to the Public. Utilities Commission.