| OCR Text |
Show PUBLIC UTILITIES IUSJPP0SEO Railroad. Men and Other Citizens Denounce the Evans Measure. URGE STATE WELFARE Landowners Declare Utah Should Induce Investors to Develop Resources. Evans's bill for a public utilities commission com-mission ia Utah was denounced as giving giv-ing unfair and arbitrary powers in the direction and management of railroads and other utilities into the hands of three commissioners at a hearing on the bill in the senate chamber las night. It was also charged that the enactment of the bill would deter railroad improvements im-provements and' extensions, and that capital, needed to develop tho state would be frightened by it. ifost of tho time last night was given giv-en over to the negative side of the question, although there were three speeches in favor of it. One or two arguments ar-guments between the sides served to relieve the strain of legal and statical sta-tical argument aud recapitulation. Hearing Adjournment. The hearing began at 7:30 o'clock, and at 11 o'clock the senate judiciary committee, w hich was conducting it, declared de-clared an adjournment to Tuesday night when friends of the utilities bill want to reply to some of the negative arguments argu-ments presented. Senator Li. B. Wight, chairman of the committee, announced that, as at previous hearings, both sides would be heard from. YValdemar Van Cott, attorney for the Denver & Rio Grande railroad, carefully reviewed tho, Evans bill last night, pointing out to the committee scores of instances in which, ho declared, the measure w7ould do injustice to and menace the prosperity of public service corporations, particularly the railroads. Mr. Van Cott objected to the provisions pro-visions giving the three utility commissioners com-missioners the right to say into what territory railroads should be built, aud to a section prescribing that the commission com-mission should not consider technical rules of evidence in cases before it. Scores One Provision. The railroad attorney laid particular partic-ular stress, however, upon a section of the bill providing that where the commission com-mission is a party to a question, the burden of the proof must ue made by the other party. Mr. Van Cott characterized char-acterized this provision as ' 1 outrageous. out-rageous. " "This means," he said, "that a charge by this commission is equivalent to guilt unless disproven by the defendant's burden of proof." He continued: The bill gives this utilities commission com-mission more power than any American Amer-ican political machine has ever had. It can limit the revenue of public service corporations, it can give users and patrons an interest in the business, although they may not have a dollar invested, but dt will not pay the debts. I do not be-lieve be-lieve Utah suffers from tho public utilities. The states which have utilities commissions get no moro than Utah gets, so why should this state pay $35,000 a year for this commission? Mr. Van Cott concluded with tho observation ob-servation that the Evans bills would enable threo politicians at small salaries sal-aries to run properties manned by experts ex-perts and involving millions, but expressed ex-pressed the hope that Utah legislators would be conservative not extremists in cither direction. N. T. Porter Opposes. Ir. T. Porter, who said he was interested inter-ested in the development of lands in Iron county, made a frank argument against passage of the bill, fearing that it would hamper hailroad investment and extension and that, in turn, would keep capital from investing in Utah resources re-sources and keep settlers from Utah 's vacant lands. He did not go into legal phases of the bill, merely discussing its bread provisions. " 'Open arms to capital' should be Utah's policv," he said. He explained that he lived in Davis county, which has ample railroads, but that his land enterprises lie iu Iron county, which has only one road, tho Salt Lake .Route, which he took occasion to compliment upon the co-operation and friendliness it exhibits to patrons along its line. ,This road, he said, has never been profitable, pro-fitable, since its territory is still in early stapes of development, yet it has helped rather than gouged its patrons. Cries for utilities commissions, no said, come from populous centers, where there ! might be some demand, but he declared that a new country like Utah should not. so circumscribe railroad enterprise and scare awav capital and settlers. "It rcimires" inducement rather than deterrino-'laws to bring capital for the development of this state." bo concluded. con-cluded. , , .,, , y. s. Feet, against the bill, and Koss Benson, in favor, got into some arguments argu-ments about figures concerning commissions com-missions in other states, read bv Mr. Peet In reph- to a ouestion from 11. I Moore, Mr. Peet said he did not represent rep-resent snv railroad and tht he wrote i the data he read to the committee himself him-self John M. Haves of the rtah oppej eompnnv, speaking against the bill, said iho Bine-ham & ("inrfield road would never havo bee" built had there been. (Continued on Page Four.) PUBLIC UTILITIES BILL IS OPPOSES) j I (Continued from Page One.) a utilities com mission Jaw in effect then, because its terms would have prohibited pro-hibited it as a line competing with the , Denver & Kio Grande. I Bernard J. Stewart spoke in favor j oi' the bill. "There is nothing in it that does an injustice to the public service ser-vice corporations," lie said. "It conserves con-serves the rights of the public utilities and the publie both. Those "who have argued against the bill have assumed that t he commissioners would be rascals. ras-cals. They assume that imcompeteiit governors would appoint in competent, or even dishonest, commissioners. That" is the wrong premise and, as their arguments ar-guments are based on that premise, it follows that their conclusions are wrong. ' ' C. K. Young, representing the C'ivic Betterment league of American Fork, said he was present in behalf of that organization to urge passage of the bill. S. S. Jensen, an Ogden packer, also spoke in favor of the bill. Mr. Van Cott and Mr. Porter were the principal Speakers against the bill last night, byt among those who were present pres-ent in opposition to the bill were L. E. Calvin, vice president and general manager; man-ager; Parley L. Williams, general attorney; attor-ney; K. C. Mansou, superintendent of transportation, and D. S. Spencer, assistant as-sistant general passenger agent of the Oregon Short Line; A. B. Apperson, superintendent, su-perintendent, and J. G. Gwvjm, chief engineer of the Denver & pio Grande; , J. H. Manderfield of the Salt Lake i Route, Joseph Nelson of the Saltan , railroad, John Bern, W. S. McComick, i and others. ! |
