Perth Amboy evening news., 1922-10-30
THE PUBLIC UTILITY PROBLEM

Judge Silzeris remedy for the public utility situation in this
state has a great deal to recommend it. The Republicans and
Democrats both seem to realize that present conditions are not
satisfactory. The appeal of the Public Service Corporation to the
federal courts over the head of the Public Utility Commission has
made the latter body as it now exists rather impotent, especially
in the matter of rate making. Both political parties have set
about to apply a remedy, but they have chosen different courses.
The Republicans would have a federal law enacted making
it impossible for federal courts to supersede state utility boards
in the regulation of public utilities within a state. The Democrats
would have franchises made inviolable so that when a corporation
dealing in public utilities makes a contract with a municipality to
give service for a certain rate in exchange for the privilege of do
ing business in that municipality no subsequent law or ruling by
any state body can change the provisions of the contract.
1t has never been made plain to the ordinary layman why al
contract once made could be violated by one party while the other
party had to live up to the very letter of the agreement. If cir
cumstances become so changed that it is impossible for one of the
contracting parties to continue in accordance with the provisions
Of the contract and it is necessary for changes to be made, it'll
would seem that, in all fairness, the contract should be revoked
and a new agreement made along new lines equally satisfactory
to both parties. But to pass a law creating a state board that hasI
power to break the contract between cities and utility corporationsI
giving the corporations the benefit of a change without giving the
cities an equal advantage is unjust and unfair.
1t may be true that i: is no longer possible to operate a trolley
line on a five cent fare ~(although it is being done successfully iI
some cities and it may be necessary to increase the fare. But as
long as the city gave the franchise in the first place with the I'M
QerSGduQlQp Jud III IdI6 was " W hNC CCHo' III III AohSoo oA"'l
franchise ought not to be changed for the benefit of one side with
out the other side having something to say about it.
We don't know how Judge Silzer proposes to put his plan
into operation should he be elected. He says he would have a
constitutional amendment, if necessary, to make it impossible for
any state board to alter the provision OF such a contract between
a municipality and a public utility corporation. 1t S a fact, how
ever. that changed conditions might make necessary the changsI
Of provisions. In that case, then, the franchise ought to be can
celed in it's entirety and a new one made in accordance with new
conditions thereby giving both parties an equal chance, or at least
the consent of the second party should be secured before SUCH a
change is made favoring one side without equally favoring the
other.
To tie the hands of a municipality as they are tied today by
compelling them to live up to the provisions OF a contract maze
years ago with a public utility corporation while the corporation
by appealing to the state board can secure changes In lra'-
chises for its own advantage, does not seem right.
The Democratic plan for handling this utility situation seems
10 be better than the plan the Republicans have advanced as 1t
GOES to the bottom of the evil. Yet both have their olHlculeS
in being carried out. 1t is a question whether either one Will De
able to put their plan into execution, yet there is need Tor some
thing to be done to improve conditions.