New-York tribune., 1907-11-21
MAY DELEGATE POWER.
An IMPORTANT DECISION.
LEGISLATURE Can Fir Public Service
Rates by Commission.

Albany " Y. Nov. aD.-The Appellate Division
OF the Supreme Court for the Sd Department, By
a divided court. voting two to three. to-day sus-
taned the constuuonality Of the act of 1876 estab-
fishing the State Commission OF Gas AID Elec-
t-ic!ty particularly in the matter OF the right OF
the LEGISLATURE TO delegate 20 a commission its
power TO fix the rates 20 be charged by a public
service corporation. The decision Is regarded as
sustaining. least in this regard the act OF last
winter by which the public service commissions
succeeded 10 the powers OF the Commission Of Gas
and Electricity.
The decision was given on the appeal OF the Sara
toga Gas. Electric Light and Power Company from
order OF the Commission OF Gas and Electricity
fixing az s. i5 q thousand cubic feet ard cents q
kilowatt hour the maximum prices 20 be charged
by the company for gas and electricity respectively
Il IS understood that the company Will take an
appeal 20 the Court OF Appeals on questions of law
The prevailing opinion IS by Presiding Justice
Smith. justices Chester and Cochrare concur.
Justice Kellogg IN opinion dissentS. and IS con-
Cured with by Justice Sevsu.
Ex-senator Edgar 7. Bracket and John 3. StarcH-
field. o. counsel. appeared for the company Frank
Gick. Marcus T. Hun and John = Henning. OF
counsel represented the trustees OF the village of
Saratoga, who made the complaint 70 the commits
sion Briefs were submitted by the Attorney Gen
eEal and BY the Public Service Commission in the
ID District
Presiding Justice Smith IL his opinion refers 20
the brief submitted BY the PuSIc Service COM
mission IN which. h says. Is also found quota
tion from the opinion given by Attorney General
Moody 10 Congress, n watch he reaches these two
cor -lusiors;
FlrTS;-TheIs . Is gove-nneatai power 70 tx The
roads Vested IN the Lsgizlsiufe of the states Win
stsles' ana vested II Congress wt-l regard - al
ssS,33ad-AL;hoggh legislative. power proPerly
BODY having enacted into the statutes TIE stan
70 an adiaisa:TeI I bav i nc. ST eTe-cS sSy 4 Z -;
true sense judicial power the duty % tx rates n
conformity with that standard
The opinion goes on TO say:
In the same brief twenty-five states are rarred
II tie courts OF this state this question has not
zen S-sc;iT decided bur he principle Is. think
Il VII thus be seen that the ass Enption q this
authority. Nor decision : cited n the state O.
;z1 s2~-s wee fues;.oIs & re poEeT provided
"a ~ some standard which IS presented n the
L IS strongly insisted tha, the statute axes 70
S-ch standard i n this tce appellant be correct
unco1s-itu-.onal.ty - The act IRE poxer a. ne
commission : given iC thes- vo- After S--n
made 6y ths commission, o. is of-e-s agents o.
!--5eesoES ne Commission withi1 tae limits pre-
porat.oa person in slch TzuEicipsl.ry' te CON
q reasonable rate. nor l-st rae equal ra-s
They are given no STANDARD percentage q
oa1y EI6e : % * the rate within -he lGlits
adjudication that the Legs,a-u-e Itself ca-rot *
rste we.ch would = c:naseato-y - TIE property
that p-5lc sc-vice cc-po-z--on has rot TIE right
"! f'- lis o-odrct, bit must serve Ire public g
Just and reasonable rates.
ea5 ne ASSs ESsaS onr 'a5 On '1s s Fsss'Sd y &
which IS % guide this coDrclssio1 Il ths exercise
Vie co-vo-r.l97 one ~.I~s-,hIa =, tla ,-Il5- -
r-lz- y = = *
slilclsEt.y den1ed within the authorities which
Without these words q limitation. TIE at nigh,
= deemed 20 s4vs % The commission The power
soyTeTe- - .ps- = c--, - = I--.S '
s.a1.a.9 BY Ea5eh the e2H-zss.oa Is 70 ee g1idsd
either case no legislative discretion : delegated %
tlact2ns S- e held a-.1-stE-tive. and 10 lssts-
Il discussing the re4Sonab.e-ess q rates justice
Smith says. IL pa-t-
L thus appears ;ha- he stockholders ct pzeuc
serN.ce corporation are Eot entitled % require The
tEei- sT.-T5S-- - - 500 cS--,-.i-- - ~
p wee : emitted % lar return -7o1 tEe acJ-zl
- Use after Fay,Hs al expenses ana .laollir-es
reasonably charged against -LE What
the tldgInea; % TIE col-:-
OS3e-sauTE- y. :. Nov. -l--J-s-.ce John - Esl-
loss. II Gis<--tlE :-C- TIE majority opinion q ne
Appellate D.y.s-7z Third Department rendered 70
Gay II tEe Sa-a,cga gzs case LGlC5lE IRE -tg-t CO
ne Public Service Commission 20 * = Sz--- o.
rates fer publ se-ylcs corporations Ez-zcs ,ae
following grounds, II rs-t-
TIE cc-ru0c law co=PeIs carriers ard Others e.
Ea-ed j. p-7,-c ss-v.-- - S--v- ,1e 1-s-:- az =
reasonable price AT unreasonable price. 5Xed by
another party, = Illegal e. common LAW TIE com
m --E aXes he ra,e. al5 ne legislature q is
are merely a5-1.-.S.-atiys ana 70. -.d-5sr =, -
ts.az-. res co-a-ary Isz = -.sEt t5 sl-1,Sn ess
-- IN e -ara =
- e@s1.-l-e-eSs ct - 7Tre cs-=-r--r O. z CO..
sEotgTLec ~ Al ac--1-c4-lcr q tle court Any
-ss-z--,--1 sII-s-Is an C7-tssc1Ss4e p-.-e czlra
Ace-sss - - prise determined BY -c---s DE-
q th- severe. plants from thei- supplies e c-- cs
-1l factories P-o1-c-1E her appliances ana ma
e--=.ys a. = p-,-r - @'9T- --,---t oi sers-ee
EvSl-t1 @n1 sts- c1--.t-o2s --as X Il impossible
Este foE s.. -lSa..,.cS n ta4 state \ reasonable
an IS e--t-55 -.-.se- - ---,---- f-- - -be-~s
reasonable F-ice fc- - p-c5uc-- As conditions
T-te o-1--ag -o- t--ee Ee=-S Ia- ---fre-ce -
tNve2 2-oat ans - -o re r7cG-ce- nay -
-e-.a-s coal ell cc2Ee-- ac- -te- items - expense
T-e experience - Ire ,zst 1h-es years nas shown
mat What vas q reasonable p--ce three years ago
- - n sSe-1o-e pE4e- te--aS 41e prov son
sSal- so@uste1- olt giving tse producer 70 rtsht
10 r~1eari1s denied q ths defendant tie lesal
give / validity THIS c5zTT nay progeny -iaai-
= .zq-isy 70 'e'-eE = ~ s9--iisse5- ~ ;llss
-se ecrrr--sSlol : Invalid ard s.c-l1 D. a1n1.-ec
Win costs.
Considerable pleasure wzs expressed yesterday Al
The ones o. ire PuAEc Ss-vsce Coz--rss5- to- tie
- Department - t-e decision g IRE c1--c-
Tr.s decision All prove ve-y AelPtli % IS
sad A1el z B-aosula-- ocuase 70 ,hs commission
az -