New Britain herald., 1925-01-16
TROLLEY COMPANIES AND THEIR LAW,


 Explanation by the Public Utlli- ties Commission regarding it's atti- tude toward the Connecticut com- pany, as complained of in New Bri- tain. which 1t says is due to the wording of the statues applying to trolley companies, places the com mission in better light among im- partial observers.
 The Commission declares 1t advo- cates change in the law whereby fhe company, or any other trolley company, can not have such remark able advantages.
 The law. in chapter 2s7, in the public acts of 1921, specifies that trolley companies have the right to establish bus lines along established routes, or between points where they already have trolley lines, and can abandon trolley lines in favor of busses at will. Such action does not come under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, 1t Is de- clared, 1t being not until after such bus lines are established that they come under the purvew Of this reg ulatory body.
 Bus line proprietors, however, when they seek to establish a line, must appear before the commission, for the statute does not include bus lines in this unexampled bill ot rights, but only refers to trolley companies"
 When this statute was passed the trolley companies gained 8 remark able advantage throughout the state: and how and why this was brought about would be of much interest to the public. The work of a lobby and lobbying attorneys is suggested in a grant of such broad powers. No other explanation Is possible except that the legislators were greatly de- sirous of preserving the status quo ir regard to the trolley companies. Such partiality toward them was not com mendable, to say the least. For the function of a legislature is not tc yield an advantage to one species oi transportation over another; it does not call for paternalistic assistance for trolley interests or any other in' terests. Yet here we have it, witt the Public Service Commission sup posed to function as an impartial tri' bunal, when the law specifically pre- vents it from being such a tribunal
 The P, U. c, says it wants this law changed, so that it can have Jurisdiction over the establishment o1 krolley-bus lines as well as after they are established. The P. L. c. should be able to impress the Legislature with the justice of this wish and tho Legislature should not delay ir granting this request, so clearly il the public interest. If the Legisla ture remains adamant to the com mon dictates of justice the bus own CTS should pool their interests, star a fund and begin court proceeding upon the ground that the law is un constitutional. They would have good case from the start, with th' r. U. C. in principle agreeing witt their contentious, and it is our opin ion they would have no difficulty il winning should the matter be takeI through the higher courts.
 Why the P. |. C. went througl inc formality of giving a hearing t local bus line owners in regard tt the franchise to Hartford is not ex plained; perhaps this was a lega though useless formality. But tn explanation of the P. L. C. does ex plain the previous announcement 0 the Connecticut company that would start it's bus line. The Con necficut company knew of its right under the law and acted withou bothering to inform the P. U. C. a ii was privileged to do under the cir eumstances.
 As things stand under the pattern alis4ic law operating to the advan taea of the trolley companies, a trol lev line can substitute a bus line fo trolley service whenever it desires t do SO; it can abandon a trolley lin whenever it wishes. But under tn taw a bus line owner cannot start line without gaining permission iron 4ge F. U. C., and he must show tha 1t does not parallel or otherwise con flicf with the precic-s service give ky a trolley companS, and must in