upr000154 69

P.3. As will appear from what is previously stated in tills letter* the provisions of the hill which 1 consider parti­cularly objectionable are the provisions of Section 3. There are other provisions in the hill which 1 do not favor. X think the provision of Section 2 of the bill which would eliminate the right of a person to he registered to represent s qualified corporation owning property in the district at a district election is objectionable. Also the portion of Section 5 of the hill which would permit the district to take possession of condemned property after Judgment while an ap­peal is pending is objectionable even though the district is required to pay into Court the amount of the Judgment. It is easy to imagine the difficulties which would he encountered if the district had taken possession of an operating utility and the Judgment of condemnation was thereafter reversed so as to require the retrial of the ease. The orderly procedure is for the owner to stay In possession until final judgment. X am not concerned with the provisions of 3eetion 4 of the hill* nor the provisions of Section 5 not heretofore al­luded to* nor the previsions of Sections 6* 7 and § of the hill. 1. S. Bennett