Page images
PDF
EPUB

utilities serving the public and consequently the public itself would be in an unfortunate situation if the rates named in these franchises were unchangeable during the long term of the franchise; and I think the fact that there were state commissions with the experience and power to properly adjust the rates of the utilities during the war emergency and thereby secure service for the public, demonstrates the wisdom of reserved power in the state to modify franchise rates.

It is true that the terms of a private contract between individuals and private corporations cannot be changed without the consent of the parties to the contract, but under the law a franchise agreement between the city and the public service corporation is not the same as a private contract. The courts properly lay down the rule that the public is interested in the service and rates provided for in such franchise and that it must be understood that such agreement is made between the city and the company with the implied power of the state to make such changes as may be necessary to secure adequate service for the public.

As a result of the orders of the state commissions changing franchise rates to meet war conditions, a large percentage of the rates have been changed from fixed to flexible schedules and this is as it should be. Prior to the advent of the regulating commission, the prevailing method of fixing the rates of the street railway, electric, gas, water, local telephone, and heating companies was by long-time municipal franchises, but we now know from experience that the costs of operation are ever changing and that the rate schedule of the utility should likewise be changeable and flexible so as to enable the utility to meet the changing conditions and serve the public. During the last two or three years many of the commissions have been putting in rates for temporary periods, and retaining jurisdiction to make further changes in the rates up or down at any time according to changed conditions, and as stated I believe these flexible schedules are more scientific and better for both the patron and the utility than the long term fixed schedule.

Only one amendment tending to cripple the Public Service Commission Act of Missouri has been enacted since the creation of the commission and that was an amendment adopted in 1917 by which municipally owned water plants were taken out from

under the jurisdiction of the commission, and results have shown that this was an unfortunate amendment, especially for the smaller cities and towns that own their own water systems. The Commission has rendered much valuable aid and assistance to the municipal plants of the state, especially of the smaller towns and cities, with reference to their rates, keeping their records and accounts, purification of water, and other matters which they were not equipped to handle, and many municipal water plants have requested and received valuable assistance from the commission even since the amendment of 1917. While it has never been necessary under the Public Service Commission Act of Missouri to obtain the consent of the commission to construct and operate a municipal plant, yet the regulation of the rates and service of municipal plants after construction was wisely placed under the jurisdiction of the commission and this has resulted in much benefit both to the consumers and to the municipal utility.

Another commendable feature of commission regulation is the simplicity of the practice and procedure before the commissions. While much discussion has been going on the last few years of needed reforms in the rules of procedure before the courts, such reforms have actually been put into practice before these state commissions. As you know the trials or hearings before the commissions are conducted without reference to the technical rules of evidence or practice obtaining in the courts, and as a result the commissions have been able to ascertain the essential facts and administer justice much more quickly, economically, and efficiently under their simple form of procedure than they could have done under the technical rules of evidence and practice applied in the courts. As a practicing lawyer, I was somewhat sceptical when I first became a member of the commission of the wisdom of the rule admitting heresay evidence and of proceeding without regard to the other technical rules of practice, but I am now convinced that the simple forms of practice before these commissions are conducive to justice, economy and efficiency, and that as their practical operation comes to be more generally understood by the Bench and Bar, there will be approval of them. It may be that these simple rules of practice would not be advisable in a criminal case or in a civil

case before a jury inexperienced in sifting and distinguishing between the relevant and irrelevant facts, but they are undoubtedly preferable in a trial before a tribunal capable of sifting and distinguishing the facts.

While many of the decisions of the Missouri Commission have been reviewed in the courts, no claim has ever been made in the courts that the simple form of procedure before the commision has operated injuriously or prejudiced the rights of any one, and the simplicity of the practice has been uniformly commended by the members of the bar practicing before the commision.

While the unjust attacks on the state commissions have been general and persistent, I believe that these commissions will emerge from the trying period through which we are passing with a stronger hold upon the public confidence, and that the result will be to strengthen rather than weaken them. Somehow right and justice generally prevail, and believing that the state commissions have fully measured up to their duties and responsibilities, I have every confidence that they will be sustained by the right-thinking and well-meaning people of this country.

It is true that the state commissions have stayed the hand that would have destroyed or confiscated the property of the public utilities in the great crisis but the people of this country have never tolerated the advocates of confiscation and the fact that the state commissions have been big enough and brave enough to meet the emergency should and will command them to the honesty and intelligence of the people.

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

SECTION OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND
ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR

The Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar met in the Central Library, St. Louis, Mo., on the afternoon of August 24, 1920, and again on the evening of Thursday, August 26, 1920.

The Chairman of the Section, Charles M. Hepburn, of Indiana, presided.

The Secretary, John B. Sanborn, of Wisconsin, presented a draft of by-laws which, after examination and amendment, were adopted.

Formal addresses delivered before the section by Charles M. Hepburn, Andrew A. Bruce and Hollis R. Bailey follow this memorandum.

(See pages 467, 480, and 498, respectively.)

The Nominating Committee consisting of William R. Vance, Hollis R. Bailey and Samuel Williston, presented the following nominees who were unanimously elected to their respective offices:

Chairman, Elihu Root, of New York; Vice Chairman, Charles A. Boston, of New York; Secretary-Treasurer, John B. Sanborn, of Wisconsin. Council: Julian W. Mack, Illinois, one year; Edward Letchworth, New York, one year; Charles M. Hepburn, Indiana, two years; James P. McBain, Missouri, two years; Harlan F. Stone, New York, three years; Oscar Hallam, Minnesota, three years; Robert M. Hughes, Virginia, four years; Frederic C. Woodward, Illinois, four years.

The following resolution proposed by William Draper Lewis, and thereafter amended in certain particulars, was adopted by the Section, viz.:

"The Chairman for the ensuing year and six other members of the Section appointed by him shall be a special committee,

which committee shall report to the next annual meeting of the Section their recommendations in respect to what, if any, action shall be taken by this Section and by the American Bar Association to create conditions which will tend to strengthen the character and improve the efficiency of persons to be admitted to the practice of law."

The meeting of the Section thereupon adjourned sine die. JOHN B. SANBORN, Secretary.

« PreviousContinue »