It is equally true that the board is willing to protect an existing company which is giv ing satisfactory service, froni the invasion of its territory by a large company. The board's action, in the case of an appeal by the Haver hill Electric Company from a decision of the aldermen in favor of the Haverhill Illuminat ing Company, shows this. The contract of the electric company to light the city had just ex pired. Some time before its expiration, the city advertised for street-lighting bids. The bid of a certain group was successful, and they incorporated into the Haverhill Illumin ating Company, and received from the alder men power to carry on the business of supply ing electric light and power to the city. At the hearing there was no attempt to show that the service of the present company was poor or its prices high. The evidence showed that its equipment was as efficient and eco nomical for the work required as that which the new company proposed to install.
The permit rested solely on the fact that the illuminating company offered to do the street-lighting at a price which would amount to about $6000 less than the price of the old company. The old company had $250,000 invested in the business. The new proposed to invest $150,000. It was more than prob able that this latter investment would be too small to carry on a business of a volume equal to that then being done, and it was very doubtful if the company planned an extension of its business. There was no attempt to show that there would be a profit in the undertak ing; in fact, the testimony amounted to an admission that it would be unprofitable.
It seemed to the board that though the admission of the new company might, for a while, result in lower prices, the competition would in the end prove expensive for the community. The ultimate result would be a union or consolidation which would bring an undue burden of capitalization upon the pub lic, and an excessive investment in plant and apparatus. The existing investment of $250, 000, which was adequate, would be increased to $400,000, at least, and that amount would rapidly grow larger. In view of these facts the
board did not hesitate to uphold the protest of the old corporation.
It is clear that the board has developed a fixed policy, by reason of which the existing company is vastly more secure in its position than it ever had been before the creation of the board. In the first place, the board prac tically denies the right of individuals to enjoy franchises, in competition with the perpetual, state supervised corporations. It considers that the corporation has proved itself the best equipped unit to give the whole community the most economical service, and in view of this fact, it considers that the enjoyment of a right to furnish a part of the community by an individual results simply in a burden upon the corporation which it should not be forced to bear. With regard to the admission of a new corporation into the field, the board's policy is just as decisively in favor of the existing company. As long as the corpora tion obeys the law, serves the community efficiently, and charges reasonable rates, the board considers it deserving of retaining its position against all corners. The burden of the proof in every case rests upon the com pany seeking to enter the field. If it cannot prove that the existing company is not living up to the three requirements named, it has not shown the necessity of its establishment. Capital invested in supplying any community should be kept to the lowest limit which in sures efficient service. The board adheres to these principles so strictly that in one case it sustained an existing company, which was giving only a mediocre service, against a com pany seeking authority to serve the same ter ritory, on the condition that the existing corn pany should bring its service up to standard within a certain, stipulated time. (Appeal of Easthampton Gas Company, 1908.)