New Britain herald., 1921-07-22
INJUNCTION DENIED;
 JITNEYS LOSE OUT
Judge Keeler Upbolds State
 Officials in Decision

New Haven. July 22-Tho appli- eaton of the New Haven Derby Bus corporation for temporary injunc- hon to restrain the state of Connecti- cut and the city of New Haven from | enlorclng the regulations of the pub nc utilities commission of Connecti- cut Tn regard to jitney routes was denled yesterday by Judge John B. heeler ot the superior court.
 Law ill Effect Last Friday. l Appi 7a.::oni was made in the su- eperlor court of Bridgeport last week l by counsel for the New Haven-Derby l Bus Cooperation as a legal move to prevent the police from carrying out the ruling of the public utilities com 1 mission in barring jitney buses from any streets and highways where there IS trolley service. In regulations is- sued in the past two months, the commission has denied permissions to operate 1ltney buses on many routes throughout the state. The law un- der which the rulings were issued went into effect last Friday, but the I police of several cities announced that no arrests of jitney bus drivers would be made, pending the outcome of injunction proceedings.
 Judge keeler's decision is entitled:
 New Haven-Derby ..Bua Corporation vs. Sheridan T. Whitaker, city attor- ney of Now Haven, ct als.' The de- clsion follows in part.
 | Chapter TT of the Public Acts of 1921 (the jitney law) is attacked for unconstitutionality in it's various grounds. The first ground alleged is 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 we'll grounded.
 What the Act Provides.
 I The act provides that any person violating any order, rule regula- ton established in accordance with its provision or any provisions hefe- of shall be fined or imprisoned 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. r The second ground alleges that the act giants special privileges to certain classes of persons and the, third grounds alleges that the act de- | prives the plaintiff of equal protec-
 
 tion of the laws. There does not seem to be anything in the specific provisions of the statute which is ob- noxious to these objections. It is provided that any person may oper- ate jitney route, where he is found to be a proper person and the route proposed is one of convenience and necessity The determination of these questions is left to the public utilities commission. It is undoubted- ly true that the question of convent ence and necessity is intended to be determined with reference to other existing means of passenger trans port but that can hardly be said to confer any special privilege. The latter exist by virtue of esta blish- ment in accordance with law, and their existence is merely an element in determining convenience and ne- l cessity.
 Tt is claimed that jitney opera ton and jitney routes are constitu- tionally exempt from regulation. The extent of this legislative power can hardly be held to exclude the action by means of a commission even N though the establishment of such reg ulation goes to the extent of con- sidering proper routes in connection ] with existing facilities. 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 tiffs property without due process of law. Clearly no tangible or visible property of the plaintiff is so taken. Yet it is true that in some cases the franchise or an esta blished business is regarded as property and protect ed by the constitutional provisions. ! This act takes away no franchise from the plaintiff-it never had any.
 ."The fifth objection alleges that by means of the operation of the act l the plaintiff is deprived of the use
 of the highways for lawful purposes, ; while other persons are given privi- & leges denied to it. This contention
 leaves out of account the fact that
 this sort of occupation is affected
 by a public interest and, where such
 is the case, legislative power is ample to control the occupation. The au- & thorities for this position are too well
 known to need citation. This sort H of Jurisdiction has been uniformly
 upheld and as constitutional means iof refutation. These objections therefore, did not successfully chal-
 lenge the constitutionality of the
 statute.
 & The sixth ground of objection
 sets forth that the act confers upor
 the commission legislative and jul
 dicial powers. It by no means fol
 lows that the act is therefore ob S noxious to any constitutional provi
 sion. The making of rules and reg
 ulatjons, and the decision of ques
 tions of fact, is an ordinary func
 tion of administrative boards ano
 commissions. The act is not uncon H stitutio. al for this reason.
 The seventh and eighth objec