Norwich bulletin., 1921-07-22
Bus Corporation Is Denied Injunction
Against Enforcement of Regu- lations of the Public Utili- ties Commission.

+ New Haven, Conn.,, July 21-The ap- pilcation of the New Haven-Derby Bus corporation for temporary injunction to restrain the state of Connecticut, the city of New Haven and the town of West Haven from enforcing the regulations of the public utilities commission of Con necticut in regard to jitney routes was denied tonight by Judge John E. -Keeler of the superior court,
 The application was made in the su- perior court in Bridgeport last week by counsel for the jitney bus corporation as legal move to prevent the police from carrying out the rulings of the public utilities commission in barring jutney buses from many streets and highways.
 Judge keeler's occision says in part: The jitney law is attacked for uncon- stitutionality on various grounds. The first ground alleged is that the act provides no penalty for breach of its pro- | visions. This claim does not go into the constitutionality of the act.
 The act provides that any person vio- lating any order, rule or regulation estab- lished in accordance with it's provisions or any provision hereof shall be fined or | imprisoned or both The words quoted clearly relate to the express provisions of 1 the act
 | The. second ground alleges that the act grants special privileges to certain class es of persons and the applicants alleged the act deprives tho plaintiff of the l 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. 1 It is provided that any person may oper- ate a jitney route where he is found to l be proper person and route proposed is
 one of convenience and necessity The determination of these questions is left to the public utilities commission. | The fourth ground of objection says | the legislation takes plaintiffs property without due process of law. Clearly no l tangible property of the plaintiff is so
 taken Yet it is true that in some cases ] a franchise or an established business is | regarded as property and protected by 1 the constitutional provision. This act
 takes away no franchise from plaintiff i it never had any.
 The fifth objection alleged that by
 means of the operation of the act the
 plaintiff is deprived of the use of the highway for lawful purposes. while other persons are given privileges denied to it This contention leaves out of account the | fact that this sort of occupation is affect. ed by public interest and where such is the case the legislative power is ample | to control the occupation.
 The sixth ground of objection sets I forth that the act confers upon the com. mission legislative and judicial powers It by no means follows that the act i, therefore obnoxious to any constitutions provision.
 I The seventh and eighth objections botf | go to the same point, that is, that tn,
 commission, insofar as it exercises tn, powers conferred by the statute is vested
 with arbitrary power violative of consti
 tutionaf rights. The. seventh and eightl grounds are not tenable.
 The ninth ground of objection state. the claim of arbitrariness from a slight iy different angle. The act provides fol petition, hearing and granting the certif cate or refusal thereof and appeal iron
 any decision by any party in interest. T If the above conclusions are correc
 the act is a legitimate exercise of tn,
 police power by the general assembl,
 with reference to 6 business pecuIiarl,
 affected by public interest with anpl
 provision by way of review to anyon
 concerned due process of law whereb, his constitutional rights may be safe
 guarded