The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-11-25

with Deductions That Read Like
Very Sound Reasoning.
Following is the opinion on which
the city councils base their authority
to regulate the water charges. 1t was
written by l. II. Burns early in his
sixteen-year term as city solicitor,
when a like attempt was made to limit
the charges for gas and water and
which was defeated in councils:
Gentlemen Of Councils: In answer to
the inquiry addressed to me some time
ago as to the power of councils to limit
the charges for water and gas within the
city, L report as follows:
The consideration of this subject may
be divided into two parts-lirst, has the
state Ihs general power? and, second,
has ii been delegated to the corporate
authorities of the city?
The Scranton Gas and Water company
which furnishes the chief supply of gas
and water used in the city, is Corpor-
alton chartered by the state. and its
charter is contract so far as concerns
the powers and privileges expressly
granted and contained therein, and to
this extent IL is protected by the con-
stiution of the United States from leg
islative Interference by the state author
tiles. It, however, contains no provision
giving the company the exclusive right
TO fix the water rates to he charged for
water and gas, and therefore It comes
within the general rules and principles
applicable to the relations existing be-
tween legislative authorities and private
corporations.
WHAT CHIEF JUSTICE SAID.
Chief Justice Waite, in his opinion in
a railroad case involving a similar qucs-
"
of the company to call upon the legiS-
lature to fix permanently this limit and
make ii a part Of the charter, ana, II
it was refused, to abstain from building
the road and establishing the Contemplat-
ed business If that had been done, the
charter might have presented con-
tract against future legislative interfer-
ence. But 1t was not, and the company
Invested its capital, relying upon the COCO
faith Of the people and the wisdom and
impartiality of Legislators for protection
against wrong under the form OF leSls-
latiVe regulation"
These remarks seem to apply to the
present case and to leave the subject TO
be decided general principles, unin-
numbered by special legislation, priv
ileges or restrictions. The principle in
volved in the legislative regulation of prI-
Vate corporations is not new, though till
within a few years past it has been but
little practiCed i'm this country. Nearly
two hundred years ago the English par
lament passed an act regulating the
rates to be charged by common carriers
and, though this was repealed about hfty
years ago. the power to pass Such Jaw
was never denied.
The principle upon which this doctrine
Is founded seems to be that, though a
man may use his property as he pieaseS,
so long as only private interests are al
fected, yet, when the use OF private prop
art, fe oil 1gI wit m.
the public have rights which their rep
resentatives may enforce.
TO illustrate: If my neighbor has on
his premises "A spring of water, the
terms upon which ] may enter thereon
and use the water arc entirely a matter
of private agreement between us, but If
he obtains monopoly of supplying with
water the people Of the whole city, and
for that purpose has the right to take
private property and use the public
streets. then the matter becomes one in
which the pubic has an interest and is
subject to public regulation.
A PARALLEL DRAWN.
In the same way John Smith and John
Jones may agree upon the price of bar
rel of -four, but if John Smith had char
tered monopoly in the matter of supply
ing bread TO all the people of the city then
II would not be unreasonable to say that
the public should have some voice IN tiN-
ing the price. If / own farm in rural
district l may erect thereon such build
ings as l please, and may use such 1Ha'
terias as may be most conve lient, but
iG l have a lot in certain portions pf the
city / must build of stone or brick, be-
cause in such case the public are inter
ested, and therefore have a right TO reg.
ulate purely private property.
Lord Hale, one of the greatest jursts
England ever produced, states it thus
"A man for his own private advantage
may, in n port or town, set up wharf
or crane, and may take what rates he
and his customers can agree for cram
age wharfage, houselage, pesagc; fol
he doth no more than is lawful for ann
man To do Viz, make the most If his
own If the king or subject have
n public wharf unto which all persons
that come to that Oort must come anC
unlade or lade their goods as for the pur
pose, because they are the wharfs only
licensed by the queen or be
cause there is not other wharf In tha
port, as II may pull out where port Il
newly erected; in that case there cauno
be taken arbitrary and excessive duties
for cranage, wharfage, pesage, etc.
neither can they be enhanced to med
crate rate, but the duties must be rea
sonable and moderate, though settled
by the kings license or charter. For nov
the wharf and crane and other convent
ences are affected with a public intecIs
and they cease to be purlS pflNau; as !
n man set out a street in new buildin!
in his own land, it is now no longer bar
private interest but is affected by pub
lie interest"
THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE.
This was quoted and approved by Lor
Peterborough i'm Aldnutt VS.. Inglis !
East 527, in which he says: "There i
no doubt the general principle is favored
both i'm law and justice, that every ma
may fix what price he pleases upon hi
own property or the use of it; but If TO
q particular purpose the public have