New Britain herald., 1925-01-06
IMPERIALISM TOWARD CONNECTICUT COMPANY


 mon sense in his communication of protest with the Utilities Commis- sion, but this isn't going far enough. The Utilities Commission cares noth- fnS about the mayors protest. Cares nothing about New Britain, cares nothing about the public generally. Its only apparent conceN is to safe guard the vested interests of the , transportation monopolies of the state--the Connecticut company and it's owner, the New Haven railroad. To plead or argue with the Public Utilities Commission is like arguing with the Ameer of Afghanistan, The only argument the commission seems to like is an argument as to why the Connecticut company should be allowed to charge four fares on a bus between New Britain and Hartford, with a forty-five minute service, the route in New Britain paraileling that of an inde- pendent bus line, whereas an indc- pendent company offered to run busses for 25 cents per person and give service of from 20 to- 40 min utes apart. It would be unnecessary ito give the commission such an argument, however, as its old crony, ! the Connecticut company, dosn't need to argue and nobody needs to argue for it. The company usually gets what it wants.
 The Hartford Times had an edi- torial which stated that the Con- necticut company, through its ESQ., GOO year. president, Lucius Storrs, l maintains that when it substitutes busses for a trolley route it has right to figure the cost of climina- 1 ting the trolley route as part of the maintenance expense. of the busses. i The editorial also confirmed what the Herald said some time ago, that the Connecticut company had such enormous overhead that it couldn't run busses as cheaply as competi- tors. In short, the company is fin a hole" and the busses have to help pull it out of it's difficulty.
 In this remarkable financial jug glcry the Public Utilities Commits sion seems to agree, permitting the company to charge high bus rates so that they might help to pull it out of the miasma of financial misery
 In other words, the Public Utili- ties Commission can be regarded as q paternalistic guardian of the com pany,
 Much has been written about pa ternalism during late years, and most of the discussion is against the, plan. President Storrs and the exalted of- fcials running the Connecticut com pany are as much opposed to so- calistic paternalism as anyone, but when the beneficiary of paternalism is the Connecticut company they probably are strongly in favor of it.
 Why should the state of Connecti- cut act as a guardian and financial angel to the Connecticut company? Why should the state through the Utilities Commission be afraid of : permitting the stockholdcr of the company, tic New Haven railroad, to meet the hazards of the business like other business concerns, but at tempts at every opportunity to l u'lp Lllf NpIhpoIy N'ih N''' ''A0 peoples money through high bus fares?
 Persons who go into other lines of business accept the hazard and risks Of the undertaking without ex- pecting aid from the state in case of failure. Why should the Con- necticut company be regarded as mcndicant at the door of the state house?
 Why should the Connecticut com pany, unable to pay it's taxes, be eX- cused from so doing until later?" No other concern in the state, eN- ccpt perhaps the New Haven rail- road. could obtain such patcrnaIistic