of course, the argument from inconvenience cannot be pushed too far, yet it is certainly a matter of inquiry whether in the increasing complexity of our civilization, our social and business relations, the power of the legislature to give increased extent to administrative functions must not be recognized.” 1310. Fixing rates by municipal or other local government. The legislature may by statute confer the power of fixing rates upon counties, cities, or villages, or any such bodies as constitute local governments; and the power so conferred may be exercised by the body named in accordance with the terms of the statute.* 4 UNITED STATES: Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport, 180 U. S. 587, 45 L. Ed. 679, 21 Sup. Ct. 493 (1901); San Diego, L. & T. Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S. 439, 47 L. Ed. 892, 23 Sup. Ct. 571 (1903). FEDERAL COURTS: Capital City Gaslight Co. v. Des Moines, 72 Fed. 818, 829 (1896); Cleveland City Ry. v. Cleveland, 94 Fed. 385 (1899). STATE COURTS: Alabama-Crosby v. City Council, 108 Ala. 498, 18 So. 723 (1895). California-San Diego Water Co. v. San Diego, 118 Cal. 556, 50 Pac. 633, 62 Am. St. Rep. 261, 38 L. R. A. 460 (1897); Redlands L. & C. D. Water Co. v. Redlands, 121 Cal. 363, 53 Pac. 843 (1898). Florida-Tampa v. Tampa Waterworks Co., (Fla.) 34 So. 631 (1903). Illinois-Chicago, P. & P. Co. v. Chicago, 88 Ill. 225, 30 Am. Rep. 545 (1878); Water Co. v. Fergus, 178 Ill. 571, 53 N. E. 363, 69 Am. St. Rep. 315 (1899); Danville v. Danville Water Co., 180 Ill. 235, 54 N. E. 224, 69 Am. St. Rep. 304 (1899); Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Chicago, 199 III. 484, 65 N. E. 451 (1902). Iowa-Des Moines v. Des Moines Waterworks Co., 95 Ia. 348, 64 N. W. 269 (1895); Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 118 Ia. 234, 91 N. W. 1081 (1902). Maryland-Charles Simon's Sons Co. v. Maryland T. & T. Co., 99 Md. 141, 57 Atl. 193 (1904). Missouri-State v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 102 Mo. 472, 14 S. W. 974 (1890). Tennessee-Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co., 107 Tenn. 647, 64 S. W. 1075 (1901). The power is derived solely from the statute; and in the absence of such authority there is no power inherent in a municipal corporation to regulate the rates of public service companies. Nor is the power involved in the police power, the licensing power, or the general power to "regulate" corporations using the streets. If, however, the right to fix rates by ordinance is granted to the city it will be construed as a permanent power, not exhausted by a single act of fixing rates, but capable of being exercised by revising the rates after they have been once fixed." § 1311. Fixing rates by inferior courts. In a State where the division of powers is not strictly insisted upon in the constitution, the power to fix rates may be conferred upon an inferior court, as in Kentucky upon the county court, with appeal to the superior courts in regular series.7 1312. Fixing rates by administrative commissions. The commonest way at present of fixing rates is to commit it to an administrative commission; and this may be legally done.8 5 Old Colony Trust Co. v. Atlanta, 83 Fed. 39 (1897). 6 Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport, 180 U. S. 587, 45 L. Ed. 679, 21 Sup. Ct. 493 (1901). 7 Troutman v. Smith, 105 Ky. 231, 48 S. W. 1084 (1899). & UNITED STATES: Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 307, 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 Sup. Ct. 334 (1886); Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 1014, 14 Sup. Ct. 1047 (1894); Trammell v. Dinsmore, 183 U. S. 115, 46 L. Ed. 111, 22 Sup. Ct. 46 (1901). FEDERAL COURTS: Tilley v. Savannah, F. & M. R. R., 5 Fed. 641, 4 Woods, 427 (1881); Chicago & N. W. Ry. v. Dey, 35 Fed. 866 (1888); Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry. v. Tompkins, 90 Fed. 363 (1898); Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Houston & T. C. R. R., 90 Fed. 683 (1898). STATE COURTS: 29 Florida-McWhorter v. Pensacola & A. R. R., 24 Fla. 417, 5 So. 129, 12 Am. St. Rep. 220, 2 L. R. A. 504 (1888); Storrs v. Pensacola & A. R. R., Fla. 617, 11 So. 226 (1892). Georgia-Georgia R. R. & B. Co. v. Smith, 70 Ga. 694 (1883). of course, the argument from inconvenience cannot be pushed too far, yet it is certainly a matter of inquiry whether in the increasing complexity of our civilization, our social and business relations, the power of the legislature to give increased extent to administrative functions must not be recognized." § 1310. Fixing rates by municipal or other local government. The legislature may by statute confer the power of fixing rates upon counties, cities, or villages, or any such bodies as constitute local governments; and the power so conferred may be exercised by the body named in accordance with the terms of the statute.* 4 UNITED STATES: Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport, 180 U. S. 587, 45 L. Ed. 679, 21 Sup. Ct. 493 (1901); San Diego, L. & T. Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S. 439, 47 L. Ed. 892, 23 Sup. Ct. 571 (1903). FEDERAL COURTS: Capital City Gaslight Co. v. Des Moines, 72 Fed. 818, 829 (1896); Cleveland City Ry. v. Cleveland, 94 Fed. 385 (1899). STATE COURTS: Alabama-Crosby v. City Council, 108 Ala. 498, 18 So. 723 (1895). California-San Diego Water Co. v. San Diego, 118 Cal. 556, 50 Pac. 633. 62 Am. St. Rep. 261, 38 L. R. A. 460 (1897); Redlands L. & C. D. Water Co. v. Redlands, 121 Cal. 363, 53 Pac. 843 (1898). Florida-Tampa v. Tampa Waterworks Co., (Fla.) 34 So. 631 (1903). Illinois-Chicago, P. & P. Co. v. Chicago, 88 Ill. 225, 30 Am. Rep. 545 (1878); Water Co. v. Fergus, 178 Ill. 571, 53 N. E. 363, 69 Am. St. Rep. 315 (1899); Danville v. Danville Water Co., 180 Ill. 235, 54 N. E. 224, 69 Am. St. Rep. 304 (1899); Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Chicago, 199 Ill. 484, 65 N. E. 451 (1902). Iowa-Des Moines v. Des Moines Waterworks Co., 95 Ia. 348, 64 N. W. 269 (1895); Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 118 Ia. 234, 91 N. W. 1081 (1902). Maryland-Charles Simon's Sons Co. v. Maryland T. & T. Co., 99 Md. 141, 57 Atl. 193 (1904). Missouri-State v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 102 Mo. 472, 14 S. W. 974 (1890). Tennessee-Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co., 107 Tenn. 647, 64 S. W. 1075 (1901). The power is derived solely from the statute; and in the absence of such authority there is no power inherent in a municipal corporation to regulate the rates of public service companies. Nor is the power involved in the police power, the licensing power, or the general power to "regulate" corporations using the streets. If, however, the right to fix rates by ordinance is granted to the city it will be construed as a permanent power, not exhausted by a single act of fixing rates, but capable of being exercised by revising the rates after they have been once fixed." § 1311. Fixing rates by inferior courts. In a State where the division of powers is not strictly insisted upon in the constitution, the power to fix rates may be conferred upon an inferior court, as in Kentucky upon the county court, with appeal to the superior courts in regular series." 1312. Fixing rates by administrative commissions. The commonest way at present of fixing rates is to commit it to an administrative commission; and this may be legally done.8 5 Old Colony Trust Co. v. Atlanta, 83 Fed. 39 (1897). 6 Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport, 180 U. S. 587, 45 L. Ed. 679, 21 Sup. Ct. 493 (1901). 7 Troutman v. Smith, 105 Ky. 231, 48 S. W. 1084 (1899). $ UNITED STATES: Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 307, 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 Sup. Ct. 334 (1886); Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 1014, 14 Sup. Ct. 1047 (1894); Trammell v. Dinsmore, 183 U. S. 115, 46 L. Ed. 111, 22 Sup. Ct. 46 (1901). FEDERAL COURTS: Tilley v. Savannah, F. & M. R. R., 5 Fed. 641, 4 Woods, 427 (1881); Chicago & N. W. Ry. v. Dey, 35 Fed. 866 (1888); Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry. v. Tompkins, 90 Fed. 363 (1898); Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Houston & T. C. R. R., 90 Fed. 683 (1898). STATE COURTS: Florida-McWhorter v. Pensacola & A. R. R., 24 Fla. 417, 5 So. 129, 12 Am. St. Rep. 220, 2 L. R. A. 504 (1888); Storrs v. Pensacola & A. R. R., 29 Fla. 617, 11 So. 226 (1892). Georgia-Georgia R. R. & B. Co. v. Smith, 70 Ga. 694 (1883). of course, the argument from inconvenience cannot be pushed § 1310. Fixing rates by municipal or other local government. The legislature may by statute confer the power of fixing rates upon counties, cities, or villages, or any such bodies as constitute local governments; and the power so conferred may be exercised by the body named in accordance with the terms of the statute.1 4 UNITED STATES: Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport, 180 U. S. 587, 45 L. Ed. 679, 21 Sup. Ct. 493 (1901); San Diego, L. & T. Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S. 439, 47 L Ed. 892, 23 Sup. Ct. 571 (1903). FEDERAL COURTS: Capital City Gaslight Co. v. Des Moines, 72 Fed. 818, 829 (1896); Cleveland City Ry. v. Cleveland, 94 Fed. 385 (1899). STATE COURTS: Alabama-Crosby v. City Council, 108 Ala. 498, 18 So. 723 (1895). California-San Diego Water Co. v. San Diego, 118 Cal. 556, 50 Pac. 633, 62 Am. St. Rep. 261, 38 L. R. A. 460 (1897); Redlands L. & C. D. Water Co. v. Redlands, 121 Cal. 363, 53 Pac. 843 (1898). Florida-Tampa v. Tampa Waterworks Co., (Fla.) 34 So. 631 (1903). Illinois-Chicago, P. & P. Co. v. Chicago, 88 Ill. 225, 30 Am. Rep. 545 (1878); Water Co. v. Fergus, 178 Ill. 571, 53 N. E. 363, 69 Am. St. Rep. 315 (1899); Danville v. Danville Water Co., 180 Ill. 235, 54 N. E. 224, 69 Am. St. Rep. 304 (1899); Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Chicago, 199 Ill. 484, 65 N. E. 451 (1902). Iorca-Des Moines v. Des Moines Waterworks Co., 95 Ia. 348, 64 N. W. 269 (1895); Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 118934, 91 N. W. 1081 (1902). Maryland-Charles Simon's Sons Co. v. Maryland T. & T. 141, 57 Atl. 193 (1904). Missouri-State v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 102 Mo. 472. (1890). Tennessee-Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co., 107 Tenn 1075 (1901). |