Perth Amboy evening news., 1922-10-06
S|LzER PUSHES
UTILITY FIGHT
Says Democrats Effort is to
Bring Back Five Cent
Fare

Democratic platform said as follows:
Our effort is to bring back the
five lent fare. There is no such at
tempt made by the Republicans or in
their platform. We have pointed out
that the five cent fare may be
brought back, first: by placing upon
the statutes of this state a law which
shall provide that contracts made by
municipalities with the trolley COM
panies shall not be subject to impair
ment by legislative enactment, but
shall be binding upon both the NUM-
cipality and the traction company.
This points put as clearly as it
can be that the five cent fare may be
brought back by legislative enact
ment. Notwithstanding this clear
and unequivocal language. those who
have been throwing dust into the
eyes OF the people for the last three
months are insisting thai there must
be q constitutional amendment to ac-
c0mplish this. This is not true.
I'VE have recommended in addi-
tion to the legislative enactment,
that the constitution be amended to
incorporate a similar provision so
that, after we have put this law
upon the statute books no legisla-
ture controlled by the Board of
Guardians or traction interests can
repeal it.
There certainly is nothing COM
plex, dif1cult or obscure about this.
when trolley companies secure
their franchises they file acceptances.
Our courts have said AS between
the parties the consent n aceep-
tance have the force n effect as a
contract
sBut, Tt is a contract subject to
the states sovereign power over
rates. and when, as in this case, the
state through its Board of Public
Utility Commissioners, exercises its
~soyereizn power yer rates the con-
tract rights of the parties u
yield
ssThe court further said: The
power given to the municipality (to
make a c~ontract) is not broad
enough to justify the municipality in
restricting the sovereign power OF
the state over rates to be charged
by public utilities
~If the state originally had the
power to give municipalities the
right to make contracts with trolley
companies. and If 1t had h right 10
take that WI away, Gas it did,, 1t
also has the right to again restore
the In fact, the state could
fomorrow pass a law fixing q dehi-
mite rate to be charged by the pup,
lie utilities, subject to constitutions
requirements
ssThere is nothing retroactive about
49, matter at all. The utility act OF
1911 changed the ~pre-exlstlng law
and was not retroactive and so, II
there is a law of 1922 changing the
1911 act, that is not retroactive
AThose who do not want a hve cent
fare restored and those who are en-
deavoring to fool the people on this
question will no u oppose LIE
and make no effort to get away from
the present practice whlcn mas
brought us the eight cent fare, anu
perhaps worse.
perhaps it might also be well 10
noint out to those who seem blind
On, the subject that the Democratic
rIatform clearly points out that un-
til five cent legislation can be enact
ed~the utility board must continue
10 regulate rates and h a IN oonns
"a for the purpose Of fixing rates
there must be included only actuaI
and real values. and there u De
excluded allowances which are either
dishonest or fanciful.
nThe elements which enter into
rate making have been defined by
mr. courts. To state them in legisla-
tion would simply reiterate the judi
eial declaration and no real progress
world be made. The legislative c
taxation IL it omitted any of h ele-
ments declared ~judicially to be ne
cessarv would obviously be unconsti-
trticnal. Therefore, the remedy pro-
posed by the Republican candidates
fov governor was meaningless
II observe in the Republican plat
form that IT advocates that the
jurisdiction of the commission
should be extended to cover not only
an utility holding corporations, but
also all the companies that supply
them the products which the utilities
furnish to the public to the extent
of the dealings between such COM
panies."
nublican party they solemnly prom
fsed to pass the bill regulating night
work for women and failed 10 90 So
Now thay just as solemnly prom
fss to regulate holding companies
a. above stated. They will probably
lust as solemnly repudiate that
promise, judged by past experience
for I have in mind that Mr. Elliott
Repubiican from Essex, at the last
session introduced assembly bill NO.
317 to do this very thing and the
bfIf died in committee. On ebru
arv 7th. 1922, Mr.Roegner of Pas
sale. introduced assembly Dill NO.
sSe to accomplish the same result;
that died in committee. IN Fepru-
airy 9Th. 1922, Senator Parry OF Es-
eex, Republican Independently IN
PRODUCED senate bill 1873. placing
holding companies under the Jurls-
diction of the Utility commission
This bill was referred to the com
mittee on revision of laws of which
Eenator Case (Republican) was the
chairman. This also died In com
mittee.
sSenator Runyon's friends are vo-
~eaferatfng very loudly IN his utility
bIatform, on which he is going to do
and how he is going to regulate
holding companies. but It will be
very difficult for them to explain
Why, when he had an opportunity,
he did not raise his voice on the
door of the senate and secure some
action on Senator Parry's bill, or
why he did not induce some Of his
friends in the assembly to get some
action on the bills introduced by
Mr.. Elliott and Mr.. Roegner.
1T cannot be possible that Sena-
tor Runyon has just discovered the
necessity for this legislation. If so
then he has been woefully lack
ing in the knowledge possessed by
everybody interested in public at
fairs. He did know the situation