The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-08-13

In an exhaustive opinion handed
down yesterday President Judge II.
NJ. Edwards decides that councils of
cities of Pennsylvania have no right
TO fix the rates water company
shall charge. the legislature having
committed to the courts of common
pleas of the various counties the power
to regulate the rates If too high when
ever any consumer shall properly pre-
sent the matter to the court.
The opinion was handed down in
the case of Conrad Schroeder against
the Scranton Gas & Water company,
brought to test the legality of the Or
dinance passed a few months ago by
councils, fixing the rates to be charged
FOR water in this city. Judge Edwards
decides that the councils had no
authority to pass such an ordinance.
The opinion which is of great impor-
tance to the people of the city follows.
JUDGE EDWARDS OPINION.
The facts alleged IN the plaintiffs bill are ad
mitted by the demurrer The Ccarcst statement
Of these facts is to be found in two letters one
from the plaintiff to the defendant and the other
from the defendant TO the plaintiff, designated
in plaintiffs bill as Exhibits and D. The let.
tcrs are as follows
''Scrsnton, Pa, May 2S, 1901.
"'W. W. Scranton, President,
Scranton Gas and Water Company,
scranton, Pa.
Dear Sir:--I have received from your com.
pany bill for water for my properties for the
quarter from April |, 1901, to July L. 1901 sis co.
being at the total yearly rate OF $40. co. In this
bill you charge for eleven families at so each;
eleven bathing tubs at So each; Ave hose connec.
tions at IS each eighteen water closets at 81
each, and three horses at 81 each. | beg to call
your attention to the ordinance OF councils an.
proved by the mayor January H. 1901, which
fixed the price for bath tubs at 81. 80 each water
closets at sl.25 each, hose connections at ss
each and horses at $3.50 each. According to the
rates fixed by the ordinance your bill should he
SOL Please send me a corrected bill, and
will at once remit the amount according to the
ordinance.
Every truly yours,
Conrad Schroeder"
Scranton, Pa, May IS, 1901.
"Mr. Conrad Schroeder.
Scranton, Pa.
Dear Sr:-lours of this date is at hand
City counsils have authority whatever to fix
water rates for this company. We are advised
by counsel that the ordinance to which you
refer is Of effect whatever. Under the cir.
cumstanccs the time for the payment Of your
water rates for the quarter ending July /, 1901,
$500. is extended to June 10, 1901, but unless
paid by that time the service of water to your
properties will be discontinued.
Yours truly,
'W. W. Scranton, President"
The only question in this case il the authority
Of the councils OF the city of SCRANTON to 6x h.
ordinance the rates to be charged by the defend.
ant company for water furnished by it to its
customers within the limits Of the city. Plain.
hp Doubt he
right OF the Scranton Gas and Water company
| under its corporate powers TO charge any rates
for water. We need not consider this matter
now, because the bill itself, in the first para.
graph. AYERS that the company is authorized,
permitted and required TO furnish pure gas and
water to the public in the city of Scranton,
and is so engaged in supplying gas and water,
particularly water" II also AYERS that the de.
fcndant has accepted the provisions of the cor
poIatlOn act OF April 30, 1874, and its supple
mcntS. In this connection, We may state that
the plaintiff is not asking us to determine the
rCdSonahlcnCsS OF the water charges, and to de.
crease them, it unjust ncQuitabc, as he would
have right to under the 7th clause of the 3ith
section of the act of 1874.
LEGAL ASPECT OF CASE.
In discussing the legal aspect OF the question
before lis, counsel for the plaintiff confined his
| argument to the power Of the legislature to reg.
ulatc water rates charged by corporations char.
| tered by the state, and whatever authorities are
submitted by him are TO this effect. As a funda.
mental basis Of any argument upon this cues.
tion 1t should be conceded that private property
is subject to public regulation when it is De.
voted to a public use This in substance is ths
doctrine laid down in Mum vs.. Illinois, "a l.. s,
III. Even Justice Field, who dissented in that
case, says i'll another case: There have been
differences Of opinion among the justices Of this
court IN some cases as to the circumstances or
conditions under which some kinds Of property
| OF business may be properly held to he thus af.
fccted, as in Mum VS.. Illinois, but none as to
the doctrine that when such use exists the busi-
ness becomes subject to legislative control in all
respects necessary to protect the public against
| danger, injustice and oppression"
Lord Peterborough says that "thc good sense
and law Of the subject is expressed bv Lord Hale
to the effect that where private property is al.
fcctcd with public interest it ceases to be uris
prvati only, and he says that the principle at.
tdchcS ii there exists in the place and for the
commodity in question a virtual monopoly"
Without citing other authorities along this line
We can safely state that the legislature has the
power TO regulate by reasonable legislation the
business of a water company chartered by the
state, restrained only by constitutional limita.
tonS such as the prohibit ion against impair.
ing the obligations of contracts or taking prop.
erty without due process OF law.
Nearly all the states have provided rcgula.
tionS OF one kind or another as to water com.
panes limiting their right TO charge excessive
or cNorbitant rates, The question of water and
water rates was considered of such paramount
importance in California that the constitutional
| convention of 1879 incorporated in the organic
law Of the state an elaborate provision on the
subject. Other states. az far as we have looked
into the matter have been satisfied with lcgisla.
tive enactmcns, Not only has the business OF
water companies been the subject of state regrila.
tion, but other kinds OF business have been
likewise regulated such as elevators and ware.
houses, railroads. street railways canals ferries
toll roads, bridges, whsrycs, telcgraphs, tele.
phones, gas, bread, mills and manual labor So
there is nothing strange in the proposition that
the legislature, within constitutional restrictions
may regulate the business and rates of a water
company.
As we are not now particularly concerned, OK.
ccpt by way Of analogy, as to what has been done
in other states, we shall consider the enactments
Of our own legislature in their bearing upon
water companies and their right to charge exces.
sive rates, Ii is claimed by plaintiffs counsel
that the defendant company has monopoly Of
the water business in the city OF Scranton. We
do not doubt this assertion, The commodity
dealt in Is Of such character that the business
OF gathering 1t together its storage and distri.
button, naturally results in a MONOPOLY Bur
that the consumer is at the mercy OF the com.
pany in the matter OF rates, as was asserted
at the argument, is not true. The legislature
has provided the means by which the consumer
can protect himself by an appeal to the court
The legislature has expressly committed to the
court OF common pleas, not to the city councils,
the power 10 decide whether or not the rate
charged TO a consumer for water IL unjust or