The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1921-08-05

At inc outset there impended the question of a. continuance of the case. George D. Watrous, repre- senting the Connecticut company, an applicant for the modification of the order, started to open the case when Robert. J. Woodruff, representing the jitneymen, asked if a motion had been filed with the court MT. Wa trous admitted that there was no mo- t1on in writing, and MT. Woodruff was about to ask for continuance when the court said that as it ap- peared that all parties in interest were present he saw no reason for a continuance.
 MT. Watrous then explained his appearance in the case. States At torney filling of New Haven county, requested MT. Watrous to represent him, and Prosecutor E. s. Picket of the common pleas court, said he rep resented himself and Chief of Police Smith of New Haven who also are restrained by the order.
 The Bridgeport jitney interests were represented by counsel but MT. Woodruff appeared as the spokes- man.
 MT. Watrous first presented the case of the trolley company saying that it's revenues were 1essened from eight to ten thousand dollars a day by the jitneys. and that it opposed the indiscriminate operation of other vehicles. The stateFs attorney, he said, had no interest in the trolleys and representation in his behalf was on the ground of protection of the public to be secured through the aid of the court.
 Judge Moves, he said was in court to speak for the Federal trustees of the Connecticut company, which for years had paid no dividends and had difficulty in keeping the property up to standards required for efficiency, a property, he said, which no one would dare to value at less than $50 0,000,000 and which could be conservatively es- timated to be worth today $100, 0,000,- 900 and in which the salaries not only of millionaires but of the poor had been invested for years, without re- turn.
 Jitneys were taking traffic and pas sengers ever from territory which the Connecticut company had itself de- ve1oped, he said.
 This restraining order had turned the administrative officers of the State into consternation. Elaborate plans were made to enforce the law, when every State officials hands were tied.
 Prof. Watrous after presenting a copy of Judge Keeler's recent deci- he begged leave to invoke the prin- cip1e of comity to the State of Con- necticut and it's judges and permit the present status of the question, which had already been appealed to the Supreme court of the state from Judge Keeler's decision and was in process of appeal to sthe Supreme court of the state, and thence to the United States Supreme court, through the criminal courts, to remain.
 The claim that the defendants had been denied due process of law, was refuted by this process in the State courts, he said. The claim that the free use of the streets and highways was being denied the jitneymen, was not a federal, but a state issue, he claimed.
 Judge DeForest said that he un-- derstood Trustee Moves was to make a, statement and if it was in the na- ture of evidence, the plaintiffs wished a chance to combat it. Judge Moves before proceeding to his statement, declared he did not appear as wit ness and would offer no testimony.
 Attorney General Healy spoke briefly, outlining particularly the states position with regard to the use of the highways and urging that there was no question as to the con utionalty of the law in the opin- ion of the state officials, whose hands