Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-07-17
DRIVE ON UTILITIES
PUSHED IN TEXAS
State Attorney General Plans
Further Steps to Prohibit
Merchandising Business.
BY GEORGE 4. DOYING.

Notwithstanding the refusal of the
Texas Legislature to enact q law pro-
hibiting public utilities from engaging
in the merchandising business, Attor-
ney General James v. Alfred of that
State is undertaking to prevent the
public service companies from con-
tinuing the practice.
He has started his campaign by filing
suit in the State District Court
against the San Antonio Public Service
Co. for forfeiture of the utility's charter
and for an injunction against its hold
ing companies, the United Power e.
Light Co. and the American Light IL
Traction Co., both of Chicago.
Further Action Planned.
Attorney General Alfred announced
that this case Is the forerunner Of
similar action against other utilities
| throughout the State. His petition as
serts that the San Antonio corpora
ton is chartered to operate street car
| lines and to manufacture and distribute
electricity and gas for light. heat and
power, but that during the last five
years it has also been engaged in the
| distinct business of buying and selling
merchandise, including all kinds Of
| electrical appliances, radios, refrigera-
tors and gas equipment such as heaters.
Texas merchants endeavored to secure
the enactment of a prohibitory law
which they apparently thought would
help their own appliance business. but
the Legislature proved to be unre-
sponsive. The lawmakers OF Kansas and
| Oklahoma were the only ones that
enacted misunderstanding legislation,
although practically identical bills were
| introduced IN at least dozen States.
| The Alabama and Tennessee Legisla-
| lures. where such measures were sub
mitted are still In session. The Mis-
| souri, House favored such law but the
! Senate allowed the bill to die. Cali
| fornia. Illinois. Indiana, Nebraska. Ne
vada and Pennsylvania failed TO act in
either House.
The Kansas law apparently permits
a public utility corporation TO continue
! its merchandising business by organiz-
ing another company for that purpose
| Seemingly. the intent of the Kansas
| lawmakers was merely to prevent util-
tiles from including possible losses in
the merchandising business as a part
| Of their operating costs, thus affecting
to some extent the rates charged for
| electricity or gas
just what the Texas attorney general
hopes to accomplish by his suit against
the San Antonio utility is something of
puzzle TO observers here. II he should
succeed in having the corporations
| charter forfeited. the question arises as
! to what will become of the street car
and gas and electric services now being
/ rendered by the company in San An
| tonic.
System Suggested.
It has also been suggested that. even
| though company's charter may not
| specifically permit it to engage in the
sale of merchandise designed to pro-
mote the use of the company's principal
product. in most States it is COM
paratively simple matter to amend a
charter.
The regulatory commissions of the
State of Minnesota and the District of
Columbia are generally considered by
students of the subject to have solved
the question of utility merchandising in
an adequate manner. They have merely
provided that each utility engaged in
merchan dising shall keep entirely sep
| arate accounts of that business. with
proper charges for floor space occupied,
appliance advertising. ETC.. so that there
can be no mixing of these accounts in
any rate proceedings. This system is
| believed to afford ample protection to
consumers of utility services, though 1t
is not satisfactory to certain merchants
who would like to see the utilities COM
| pletely barred from the retail field.
tCopyright, 1872