The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1914-03-19
WATER POWER COMPANY
WINS THE FIRST ROUND.
FEDERAL co. DENIED APPLlCA.
TON TO EXAMINE POWER
COMPANY BOOKS.

gives the following account of the
hearing before the public utilities
commission of the case of the Federal
Mining and Smelling company against
pany for reduction Of rates:
One corporation in Idaho can not
have carte blanche to examine the
books reports and records of another
Idaho corporation. But such records
may be obtained and thrown open for
the purpose of getting at the essential
facts in hearing before the public
utilities commission by authority of
the commission. This is the purport
Of decision reached by the commits
sion on Tuesday In the case of the
commissioners of ShoShonc county
and the Federal Mining company
against the Washington Water Power
company.
In the petition and complaint set
forth in this case in which the Federal
Mining company was demanding low
err rates for electrical power and in
which It was set forth that 1t was i'm
possible to get at the facts without the
power from the commission to exam
inc the books and records of the pow
er company, 1t was also alleged that
the representatives of the power COM
pany had entered into verbal agree
ment to permit this examination. Re-
lying on this alleged verbal agreement
the mining company asserts that 1t
brought experts from distance and
went to much expense to prepare for
the examination. When the time
came the power company refused to
permit the examination to be made.
Three Questions at Issue.
This case came before the public
utilities commission for argument on
March with Jas. F., Babb OF Lewis
ton appearing for the mining COM
pany, and r. r. Post Of Spokane APP
pearing for the power company. inc
main question submitted to the COM
mission was as to its power to grant
the petition Of the mining company.
The mower company made objections
to the granting OF the order on these
grounds:
I. That 1t would be unjust unfair
and unrea sonable and would work If
reparable damage to the defendant t'
make such order.
2. That the commission is withou
power to make such an order unde'
chapter 81 Of the laws of 1913, or any
other statute or law in the state OF
Idaho.
3. That the making of such an or
der would be in violation of defend
ants rights under and contrary to the
of the fourth amendment
TO the constitution Of the United
States.
Law in the Case.
The mining company relies upon
section IS of the public utilities act as
to the commissions power to grant
such an order This section is as fol-
lows:
"Saction S. The commission NAV
require. bv order served on any pub
lie utility in the manner provid"'
herein for the service of order, the
production within this state at su"f
time and place IS it may designate, or
any books, accounts, papers or rec
or1s kept nv said public utility In any
office or place without this state, or
at its option. verified copies in lieu
thereof so that an examination there
If NAV be made by the commission or
under its direction"
Fow Books Are Thrown Open.
In reaching its conclusion in this
Ease the public utilities commission
considers only the second objection
After quoting the section Of law given
herewith and other sections from the
public utilities act. the commissioners
n1heir decision say:
"These sections are intended to con-
'er on the commission and any en-
oloyes thereof. and any of its officers
he authority to make examination OF
he books, accounts, papers and rec
,rds of public utilities doing business
within the state, and the commission
nay require the production OF such
books and documents whether the
same be within the state or without
he state. Unless such power was con-
rerred 1t would be impossible for the
to make an intelligent IN
1uiry into the business and affairs OF
The public utility. It Is not necessary
In order to require the production OF
such books and documents that the
Is making the investlga-
Inn. The investigation may be made
under the direction Of the commission;
but where the investigation Is made
under the direction. Of the commission
II must be made by someone appoint
ed nv the commission for such pur-
nose. It IS quite a different thing ror
the commission to appoint as eXam'h-
pr or accountant its own employe TO
make such examination than to order
the examination to be made by the
accountant and employc Of the oppo-
site party"
Why Petition Is Rejected.
The real reason for the rejection OF
the petition and the refusal to give one
- "