The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1921-08-31
Text of Jitney Decision
a zsE.,;ss i&sztia5 j SsssiSss E s2sEsss

f-7'e:'r>f f|asf2bf ;,ees.7sV E sfas sEs sE ton of a common carrier and sub jected persons or corporations so operating jitneys to the restric- tion of the Public Utilities com mission. It provided that reason able rules and regulations should be made by the commission with respect to routes, fares, speeds, schedules, continuity of servcie and the convenience and safety of the passengers, and the public It required the person, association or corporation to obtain a certifi- cate from the Public Utilities commission specifying the route over which the jitney may operate and the service to be furnished, and that the public convenience and necessity require its opera tion over such route. It required written application be made and notice to be given to the towns through which the route or part thereof was proposed and to any common carrier operating over any portion of such route or over route substantially parallel thereto. A public hearing is pro- vided for as in the method of giving notice thereof. The com mission has authority to grant the certificate of necessity and convenience, and has Jurisdiction over the lighting, safety and san itary conditions to prevail. Pro- vision is then made for an appli- ant who feels aggrieved by the ation of the Publi Utilities com mission to appeal to the superior court of the state in the manner provided for in such appeals from orders relating to street railway corporations for a violation of any order or regulation adopted or established under the provis- ion of the act. A fine of S1O0 or Imprisonment for not more than 60 days or both is provided for a breach of the act. The Public Utilities commission is authorized to make such rules and regula- tions; to hold hearings and issue certificates as may be required under the provisions of the act
 What Jitneymen Anege.
 In this complaint, the constitu- tionality of this act is questioned. The superior court of the state has held the act constitutional. ct al., decided July 21, 1921, in an opinion filed by Judge Keeler.) It is claimed that the statute vio- lates the federal constitution for the following reasons:
 First, that the act confers ar bitrary powers on the Public Util- ities commission and permits the commission to discriminate against the plaintiffs and there fore deny to them the equal pro- tection of the laws.
 Second, the statute constitutes an unlawful delegation of 1egis- latiye powers to the administra- tive body.
 Third, that 1t is unconstitutional and violates the due process of law guaranteed by the 14th amendment in that it confers an
  trary power upon the Public Uti1- ities commission to grant or re- fuse or revoke @ license.
 Fourth, the statute is not re- quiring the commission to grant a hearing in the issuance, refusal or revocation of a license, denies due process of law"
 We think the several objections urged as to the constitutionality of the act are not well founded.
 First Objection Answered.
 As to the first, the claim is that because the statute provides that all jitney buses are common car riers and shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, it discriminates against the plaintiffs. The citizen has the right of travel upon the highways and may transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, but this is a very different thing than permitting the highway to be used for commercial purposes, as place of business, for private gain, in running jitney buses. The right, common to all, to the use of highways, is the ordinary use made thereof. but where, for pri- vate gain, a jitney owner wants special and extraordinary benefit from the highway, to use it for such commercial purpose, the legislature may, in the exercise of it's police powers, wholly deny such use or 1t may permit 1t to some and deny it to others. and this is because of the extraordi- nary nature of such use. And where the legislature grants the may do so under regulations which are common to all appli- cants. They may grant, refuse or revoke the license and in so do- ing, the legislature may permit of rules and regulations when such use is granted. This 1t has done |. in the act in question by providing that a body created under the law (the Public Utilities Commission may make such rules and regula- tions and grant such license when public convenience and necessity require 1t
 It is essential that motor vehi- cles on the highway used for such purposes, should operate with safety to the public and that own CTS should contribute to the main tenance of the highways by such payments as may be required with such grant, In examining the act, we are satisfied that it 1