OCR Text |
Show Government Overregulation Seen Threat to Free Enterprise Overregulation of American business and industry has brought widespread fears that American free enterprise is losing much of its freedom, and that the power of decision is being taken from business and placed in the hands of government bureaucrats, according to Utah Foundation. v In a research report released this week, the Foundation, the private, it public service agency, called attention to the proliferation of Federal regulatory agencies in recent years and to the lack of accountability of those making and ' enforcing the new regulations. Many observers in government, in business, and among lay citizens feel that the most frightening aspent of the mass of government regulation is that it is drawn up and enforced by, appointees and employees of government agencies who are not directly responsible to the American people through any established channel Z. the Foundation report notes. Many feel that the regulators are not even indirectly reponsible to the people. They appear to be immune to firm control by the peoples elected epresentatives in either the legislative or executive branches of government. Agencies of the executive branch of government are usurping the legislative function by writing rules and regulations that or even differ from expand on the laws enacted by Congress. Congress over government regulation of American life is not ; non-prof- restricted to businessmen and aroused private citizens, the Foundation points out. Many people in the executive THE SALT LAKE TIMES FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1976 Page Eight and legislative authorized in 1930. Four more regulatory giants were created in the depression yers, between 1934 and 1938: the Federal Maritime Commission, and the Civil Aeronautics Board. These agencies regulate specific industries of national scope and vital importance to the economy. Their twin objectives are to safeguard the public interest and to watch over the welfare of the regulated industries themselves. Within the past decade there number of have appeared additional Federal regulatory agencies which do not fit into the classic pattern established by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Foundation points out. They are not concerned with the totality of any single industry, but only with the specific segment of operations which falls under their jurisdiction. In the words of a noted American economist, this limitation can result ina total lack of concern over the effects of their actions on the company or industry as a whole. . .matters such as productivity, economic growth, employment, effect on over-a- ll living standards, inflationary impacts, may be ignored. Among the new generation of Federal regulatory agencies are the Environmental Protection Agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Administration, and others. Americans concerned with the dangers of overregulation generally do not quarrel with the objectives of the new regulatory agencies and are aware that many of the programs have produced substantial benefits, the Foundation notes. They do question the propriety of placing avowed partisans in positions where clear headed objectivity is imperative for the making of sound decision, and where unsound decisions are a threat to our entire branches of government share concern. President Ford estimates that the cost to the American consumer of unnecessary and, wasteful government regulation amounts to$130 billion a year, an average of $2,000 for every American family. Senator Hubert Humphrey, a economy. noted liberal, has questioned Some specific objections brought whether bureaucrats regulations against government regulators implement the laws or rather serve which the Foundation illustrates to impede or obstruct them. He with recorded examples are that publicly called for periodic reviews the regulatory agencies: of the rules and regulations of Fail to balance benefits against each department of government, .cost. and for an economic impact study Issue regulations that conflict or evaluation of every rule and regulation and of every piece of legislation we pass. Regulation of American business and industry dates back nearly 90 years. The Interstate Commerce Commission was authorized in 1887. More than forty years later, the Federal Power Commission was with one another. Deliberately misrepresent facts that challenge their own views. Impose an unreasonable burden of paperwork on American in- dustry. Take arbitrary and unreasonable actions that may do irreparable harm to innocent parties. Utah Supreme Court Opinions IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH Stall of Utah. Plaintiff and Raapondant, No. 14374 FILED v. July 14. 1976 Wallace Murphy Plum, aka Porky Plum, Defendant and Appellant. TUCKETT. Allan E. Mecham, Clerk Jueticei Defendant appeale from a conviction for the crime of receiving U. C.A. 1953, na stolen property Ip violation of Section amended. Defendant ie here aeeklng a reversal. On July 3, 1975, the clerk of the Sanders Coin Shop In Ogden, Utah, waa robbed of an aieortmanrU gold and ailvar coins. The defend ant Plum wao not identified as one of the robbers who committed the offenee. On July 7. U75, defendant entered the Rust Coin and Gift Shop in Salt Lake City with a satchel of coins which he offered to eell. After Mr. Ruet, the proprietor, had made an inventory of the colna, ha offered to purchase the same for the aum of $2, 850. The defendant left the coins with the coin ahop while ha considered the offer and then ha agreed to leave the coine over night and to accept the check the following morning In payment. In the interim Rust observed that soma of the coins brought to the ehop by the defendant were similar to a list from the Ogden robbery. The neat day urban the defendant returned to the coin shop to pick up the check in payment ha was arrested for receiving stolen property. While the coins were In Ruet'e possession and prior to the arrest of the defendant, the proprietor of the Sanders Coin Shop in Ogden, Utah, had inspected the colna and had identified them ae being coins taken from his shop. " to the constitu- "believing that it probably has been stolen, which is subject the trial court in waa defined That by tor phrase vagueness. tional challenge its instructions in the following manner: i One of the elements in the crime as heretofore read to you by the Court is the phrase "believing that it has probably been stolen. " You are Instructed that tha word "believing" means "having a belief or opinion. " In other words, "to believe that a fact anists. " The word "probably" means "likely to occur, but Involving an element of uncertainty. " The language of that instruction waa raquested by tha defendant. We do not command tha drafters of the legislation for their choice of who language, but on tha whole it undoubtedly is sufficient to Inform those would obey tha law aa to what conduct is expected. The atatute here under con1 sideration was before this court on a prior occasion, but tha particular portion of tha statute here involved was not construed by the court. However, in this case tha trial court was carefol to Instruct tha jury as to tha elements of the crime and to further Instruct that the State had tha burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Tha verdict returned by the jury la amply supported by tha evidence. The verdict and sentence of the court below la affirmed. WE CONCUR: F. Henri Hsnriod, A. H. After the arrest of the defendant ha was questioned by the officers ae to where and from whom ha had obtained the coine. The defendant responded by telling the officers that ha obtained the coine from a atrangcr who had coma into bis place of buelnaas from the street. The defendant first said he had traded diamonds and jewelry for the coins, and later stated that he had paid $2,600 In cash for them, but took no receipt from the person from whom ha obtained the coins. The defendant did report that the person from whom ha obtained the coins had stated that ha had obtained them from a collection of hie father's and hla grandfather's. In the lower court as well as here on appeal the defendant claims that that portion of the atatute under which he waa convicted le so vague as to render it unconstitutional. Section U.C.A. 1953, as amended, the statute hare being challenged, is In the following language: , Chief Justice Ellatt, Justice J. Allan Crockett, Justice Richard J. Maughan, Justice I. State v. Mullins, P.2d 454. 549 (1) A person commits theft if ha receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it probably has been stolen, or who conceals, sells, withholds or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any such property from the owner, knowing the property to be stolen, with a purpose to deprive the owner thereof. The court below submitted to the Jury three forms of verdicts for their consideration. One verdict specified not guilty, one form of verdict included in substance the following language: We find the defendant guilty of theft by receiving, knowing said property has been stolen, as charged In the information. It is that portion of the atatute above quoted which states IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH ooOoo-- No. 14253 Company, Plaintiff and Respondent, FILED June 30, 1976 v. Salt Lake County, et al. , Defendants and Appellant. Allan E. Mecham, Clerk Justice: Appeal from a damage judgment for plaintiff on a supplemental complaint for removal of the surface of a roadway on plaintiff's property. Reversed with instructions. The original action with nn amended complaint 'thereto, from ed which this ''supplemental complaint" has sprang incorporated and continued in the Same proceedings, was bottomed on a rather unusual and somewhat comfuaing course of pleading alleging that defendant "has and is trespassing upon plaintiffs property and hat and ia creating a public way across plaintiff a property and aa such has created a nuieanen which nuisance should be abated and the defendant restrained ami enjoined from creating and maintaining said nuisance," praying that "the court order the . . . County to abets the nuisance, and remove the roadway. " Emphasis added. Nowhere in that original complaint or the amendment thereto, or in the pretrial order, is there any prayer or issue raised for a money judgment or for damages. That case waa before this court before on one point only: Whether the County had abandoned the etrects in a platted subdivision. We decided: That the CountyTad abandoned the atreeta, - and tha County, therefore, had no right to construct the road becausa of such abandonment. Upon remand tha plaintiff filed a motion to close the roadway, based on our decision, and on tha day of tha hearing, October 18, 1972, and before it was held, the County removed the road ae was prayed for ia the complaint. On March 5, 1973, four and a half months later, the plaintiff moved for permission to file a supplementary complaint (which may or may not have been an afterthought) which, over objection, was granted. The supplemental complaint was inconsistent with the first complaint, which prayed for removal of tha road, whereas now plaintiff seeks damages for the very removal it prayed for in the first instance without any claim for damages. r -- 2- The trial court, without any urgenee whatever on plaintiff's pait, volunteered, in a memorandum decision, that "the Court feels that although the plaintiff's complaint Bounded in trespass, it was not a wilful trespass but was, if anything, a negligent act in removing the roadway . . . and actually an action in negligence. " ... - Roy S. Ludlow Investment HENP.IOD. Chief No. 14374 Ludlow V. Salt Lake County, 28 Utah 2d 1J9, 499 P. 2d 283 (1972). question under the facts of this case whether plain- 2. There ia a debatable tiff was entitled to file a supplemental claim, since a different theory is alleged, but we need not decide that question here. We feel that this whole action from beginning to end, was intended to be and was an equity suit. B was steeped in allegations of nuisance, abatement thereof, enjoining the use of the road and for a mandatory injunction to remove it, - all without prayer for or proof of damages. The basis for the damage award in this case unsolicitcdly instituted gratuitously for tha plaintiff by tha court, not only waa un proper but waa ia error. Unwarrantedly it la condoned by determining how much it would cost to replace a road which the plaintiff did not want replaced, but contrariwise, asked to have removed, and which was removed. It hardly lies in the mouth of the plaintiff either in law or in equity to take tha position of having petitioned a court forcibly to require the defendant to remove that which plaintiff wants and asks to be removed, only to indulge a turnabout and say that in doing what plaintiff insists that defendant County do, with tha aid and authority of tha same court, to then Insist on retaining the right to claim damages for replacing that which the plaintiff insisted on removal. In doing so, tha plaintiff has neither alleged nor offered any proof whatsoever ae to damage to either its land or to its freehold interest. t The whole thing seams to ba somewhat of a non sequltur, illogical - certainly not reasonably justified. The matter of replacement cost being the only claimed measure of damages is even leas understandable under the facts of this case. The measure of damages here, even if any had been claimed, would have bean the difference in value of the land before the road was put in and the value after the road was removed or perhaps at some point, in between. andor unrealistic, Giving the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, wo remand this case with instructions to vacate tha damages judgment heretofore entered, and in lieu thereof to enter judgment for $580. Likewise, in light of what we have said and concluded above, it ia fait that points raised anent government immunity, discretion in allowing tha filing of a supplemental complaint, estoppel, equitable interests in land, and constitutionally worrisome things need not be canvassed here. WE CONCUR: A. H. Ellett, Justice J. Allan Crockett, Justice R. L. Tuckett, Justice Riciiard J. Maughan, Justice Save a $580 claim in the last phase of this case in placing and removing some marker stakes. No. 14253 -- 2- Learning Disabilities Assn. Announce Conference Jose Cortez Tequila Sunrise Ready-Prepare- d Make your own mixed drinks with great, imported Jose Cortez Tequila or enjoy the finest ready-mixe-d Jacquins Sunrise. Youre a winner in either case. Cherlre Jacquin Jom Cortez Tirquib - 1 Cie., Inc. PhiU., Pa. 80 Proof Sunrise - 25 Proof The Utah Association for Children with Learning Disabilities announces its third annual statewide conference to be held Saturday, November 13, 1976, at the Behavioral Science Building on the University of Utah campus. Participants are urged to by sending a check for $10 to Margaret Rigby, UACLD State Treasurer, at 860 South 2300 East, Salt Lake City 84108. Twelve dollars will be charged at the door if the conference is not yet filled. Registration will begin at 8 a.m. followed by a welcome at 9:15. Keynote speaker will be Marianne Frostig, Ph.D., founder and Direc pre-regist- er tor Emeritus of the Frostig Center of Educational Therapy, Los Angeles. Dr. Frostig is recognized as one of the foremost pioneers in the field of learning disabilities. Luncheon speaker will be Dr. Terrel H. Bell, Utah Commissioner of Higher Education and former U.S. Commissioner of Education. Workshops will be held from 10:45 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. and again from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. They will include Classroom Management and REcord Keeping; A Parent's and Teachers Introduction to Specific Learning Disabilities;" Screening; The Rights of Parents and Kids';; The Learning Pre-Scho- ol Disabled Adult; Creative HowSocial Aspects of Learning to; Disabilities; and an informal discussion session with professionals, Dr. Frostig will present a special afternoon workshop "Movement Education - Why and How" which will include a lecture and demon- stration. Teachers may obtain a Vi State Board credit toward recertification for conference attendance. The public is invited. UACLD is a it association of parents and professionals organized to aid children of average to above average intelligence who suffer specific learning deficits. non-prof- , |