New Britain herald., 1921-08-16
Robert J. Woodruff, Counsel for Bus-Own- CTS, Attacks Right of. General Assembly to Enact Such Prohibitive Measure.
Contends That Public Utili- ties Commission Prohibits, Rather Than Regulates Public Service Cars.

New Haven, Aug. 16.-The hearing on the bill of complaint of the jftney- men against those peace officers of the state who are charged with en- forcement of the new law regulating public service vehicle transportation in the city of New Haven was opened before three federal judges of the U. S. district court today. Judge Man ton of New York presided and with him were Judges Thomas of this dis trict and Judge Knox of the New Yorl: district
 The attendance of lawyers and spectators was large. Robert J. Woodruff who opened for the plain tiffs called the courts attention to the fact that the Connecticut Co. had filed, an answer to the complaint os a de- fendant and he wanted to know how it was that the company came to be defendant
 Judge Thomas said that motion to intervene made by the Connecti- cut Co.,. had been granted.
 MT. Woodruff then began an arEu- ment attacking the constitutionality of the law of the last General Assem- bly, which placed with the public utilities commission the power to reg ulate so-called jitneys and of peace officers to enforce an order of tho commission.
 Hearing Begins.
 The hearing on the bill of complaint of Leslie Lane and others. jitney own- CTS. for an order restraining Sheridan Whitaker. prosecuting attorney of the New Haven city court. Edwin IS. Pickett, prosecuting attorney of the court of common pleas. New Ha- Hen county. Arnon A. Alling. state,s attorney. Philip T. Smith, chief Of police, both of New Haven. and Rob- ert T. Hurley. superintendent of the state police, from enforcing the pro- visions of the new law placing cer- tain motor vehicles under supervision of the public utilities commission was heard in the D. s. District court to- day. Robert J. .Woodruff. for the jit- neymen. made the chief argument on the contention that the law in ques- tion is unconstitutional
 Claim of Unconstitutionality.
 Mr. Woodruff set up these claims:
 1-The plaintiffs in this case claim that chapter s77 Of the public acts of 1921, Stato of Connecticut confera ar bitrary powers upon the public utili-' ties commission and authorizes that commission to un1ustly discriminate against the plaintiffs and to deny the plaintiff the equal protection of the laws.
 2. The statute in question Is in- valid because it is an attempt by tho state to exercise it's police power by legislation violating its constitutional rights
 3-The police power of the state IS unreasonably exercised if arbitrary authority is delegared by the state to subordinate officer or conrois- sion
 State ys. Coleman, 113 Atlantic. 3S5.
 4-Legislative powers cannot be delegated to an administrative com- mission.
 Connection. 529.
 This statute constitutes just such an unlawful delegation of legislative sion which one supreme court has held repeatedly is an administrative ant: not a legislative or judicial body.
 No Sovereign Rights
 5-The privilege of using the streets for a special purpose is a franchise which can only be granted by the sovereign power.
 6-This statute is unconstitutional and violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment in that H -5nfers an unregulated discretion and arbitrary power upon the commis- sion to grant or refuse or revoke a certificate to operate a jitney.
 -No other state reposes such power. in a commission. In most states having jitney statutes the granting power is the local munich pafty.
 s1Public policy and precedent in Connecticut is opposed to the vest ing in an administrative office of unlimited power to grant or revoke "a license for the carrying on of a business not inherently dangerous. The jitney business is harmless, peaceable and beneficial to the pub lie
 Not Regulatory Powers.
 9-The power of the commission has been used to prohibit and not to regulate the operation of jitneys In wiping out the jitney business in New, Haven the commission has abused it's power of regulation. Thie deprives the plaintiff of their prop erty without due process of law.
 Yieck Wo vs- Hopkins HIS U. s. 266.
 10-From such a sweeping denial of rights there is no relief except hy injunction.
 Law is Ignored.
 11-This statute fails to require hearing by the commission but author izes the rejection of an application without q, hearing. This denies duo process of law It requires an aps - <n@.4s>,...a ... Eiax-nnfh pa =