Page:The Wisconsin idea (IA cu31924032449252).pdf/86

 many battles over it that it was very hard to convince the legislature that, if the stocks and bonds were terminated at a certain point, the consumers would lose in the end by the term franchise, as the consumers would have to provide for an amortization fund. Under the Wisconsin law corporations were permitted to surrender their franchises and receive an indeterminate permit. It was felt by the authors of this program that with entire publicity and power to fix the service conditions, this was a safe basis upon which to go and would be the cheapest in the long run.

Judge Marshall of the Wisconsin supreme court in a case involving the validity of this part of the act says:—

"The confusion created during the years preceding the public utility law of 1907 by granting franchises in several different ways,—some directly by the state, some by cities as state agencies, some by the state in the main but with power to the various municipalities as state agencies to add supplementary features, fitting particular situations, some by the state without regard to local police regulations, and some likewise having such regard, either expressly or by necessary implication, some having contractual features creating doubt in regard to their constitutional status, and some having such features but without doubtful character, many of such matters being, in the ultimate, more or less detrimental to consumers, whether public or private, and proprietors as well,—in the whole, created a perplexing situation in respect to harmonious administration. The legislature sought to deal efficiently with this mixed situation, the growth of years, by taking over existing franchises with the consent of owners, compensating them