The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1909-07-29

>~'-~"--
will not disturb it. What is the result?
This law assumes the existence
of rates \ and services which
are exactly reasonable and just. The
commission declares something to be
that rate or that service, therefore the
court says that that is the particular
rate and service intended by the legisla-
ture and legislated into existence by it.
Perhaps the railroad commission made
a mistake, "a it confessedly did in the
Manitowoc Gas Company case. Yet
the court would declare the rate an
nounced as the particular rate establish
ed by the law, because no one could
prove by clear and satisfactory evidence
that it was unreasonable. The Supreme
Court has decided and it therefore is the
law that by its enunciation the leglsla.
ture brought into existence rate that
is reasonable and q service that Is just.
If that is a fixed point, then the court
should not be satisfied with any thing
excepting the exact law The commits
sion is not given any authority to chan ge
the law. Yet if the commission orders
a rate or n service that is not the exact,
reasonable and just rate and service,
the court will often, dare say in every
instance, be forced to say that such rate
and service is the law nevertheless.
That is the court will, because the com.
mission has made an order fixing a rate
or service, say that that is the law
when il is not the law for it is not the
law unless it is the exact rate and ser
vice assumed by the law itself. Justice
Dodge in his dissenting opinion in the
case referred to comments upon the
above quoted portions of the courts s
| opinion as follows: I'm this, to my
mind, turks solec:sm. If it be fact Us
seems to me unquestionable, that there
is no fixed point of reasonableness, that
| there is almost invariably . broad field
wherein anyone of severel points would
be reasonable, the Legislature can not by
mandate or ipSe diIH change that fact.
Justice Marshall in his opinion in the
same case, in which opinion Justice
Bashford concurred, says; The bound
aries of reason as applied to service OF
rates encompass a broad field
| While it is trne that there is but one
reasonable rate or degree of service
which it is contemplated the commission
shall seek for and name, do not think
that there is only one such rate or de
gree in a given case which is reasonable
in the general sense. There may be
many but the commission is confined tC
one, otherwise it would in selecting the
proper one exercise legislative power
SO the one degree or rate so far as the
commission is concerned, considering
that it is merely to prevent extortior
and injustice and compel the giving ol
service which is fair, is the minimum
service or maximum rate. This amounts
in practice to the doctrine announced by
Justice Dodge: Il think therefore tha
this law should be SO construed as #
indicate to the commission a duty Il
find the reasonable rate which is an
tithetic to the unreasonable one which
the law condemns and that point of rea
minimum service consistent with rea
SON."
"Of course, we all know that nothing
short of omniscience can locate the exac
reasonable rate or the exact reasonabl,
service and that if the commission
makes an order that is within the fiel,
where the order can not be declared un
reasonable or unjust the order will b.
sustained by the court. The commission
in its practical workings recognizes thi
and doss not purpose to declare the low
est rate or best service possible, but t,
follow as nearly rs practicable the busi
ness theory of the public service com
panies and announce and fix the maxi
ulu III Idte anu tuo HiiiiHiuH SCI VIC.
The law that rates must be reason,
able and service adequate does not
however, date from the legislative ses
sion of 1907. That rule has existed from
the earliest day and has been repeatedl,
recognized by the Supreme Court of on
state, among others in the followin.
cases; LaFeber VS. West Allis, 1t9 Wis
60S, where franchise was declared un
lawful because it was unreasonable
against the interests of the village; Eas
Wisconsin Railway q Light CO. v
Hackett, 135 Wis. AGA, where provision
of an ordinance affecting an interurbal
was held void for unreasonableness
See also Madison VS. Madison Gas * Elec
trio Co., 1919 Wis. 2i9 Before the Ell
, actment of the public utility law tn
various village and city boards ha,
authority to regulate the rates an,
. the service of the public utilities
Some half hearted provisions in tn
public utility law still pretend to con
tinue that authority in the cities an,
villages but the authority has been shorl
of its efficacy on account of the fact tha
the review of the regulations made b
| the municipalities lies with the coul
mission instead of with the courts. Ur
| der the law as it was prior to the enact
/ ment of the public utility law the cite