Page:The Wisconsin idea (IA cu31924032449252).pdf/88

 situation has been met by written law in such a way as to avoid successful attack up to this time on the validity of the law or any part of it, and avoid attack at all either upon the law or its administration, except in a very few instances, and secure optional submission by many owners of old franchises to a displacement of their privileges,—is quite a marvel; reflecting credit upon the lawmaking power and the body charged with the onerous duty of administering the statute, and challenging judicial attention to the importance of not, by construction, reading out of the enactment any meaning not clearly found there,—even to avoid a seemingly unlooked-for disturbing consequence in a particular instance now and then,—which would tend to defeat the object of the law. The words of the enactment, dealing as it does with vast private and public interests, should, if practicable, be given a meaning so definite and comprehensive as to prevent any attempt to restrict it or extend it so as to continue or renew or promote the detrimental consequences it was aimed to abolish and prevent."

The corporations did not at once avail themselves of the privilege of exchanging their franchises for the indeterminate permits, but by a law of 1911 they are compelled to do so. Says Chairman John R. Roemer in a recent address:—

"This apparent reluctance to make the change, although contrary to the anticipation of the legislature which passed the law, was not due to any apprehension on the part of the managements that the indeterminate permits were less valuable to the corporations than their secondary franchises, but rather to a doubt as to the power of the corporations to surrender privileges which had been hypothecated to secure outstanding bond issues. Thus, most