The Grangeville globe. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho) 1907-1922, 1914-07-23

transmission distributing lines but
must carry the additional load and
distribute it over existing lines or not
at all. The mere statement of such
proposition refutes the claim. New
and additional consumers must be serv
ed over other and different lines.
The fact that the plaintiff. Idaho
Light a. Power company had not filed
an acceptance of the terms of the or
dinance granting it a franchise prior to
the time the utilities act took effect is
without shadow of merit That the
franchise was granted on the company's
application was itself an acceptance and
would bind it to the terms of the ordi-
nance granting the same so long as
the ordinance provided the exact terms
proposed by the company soliciting the
franchise. 1t is well settled that do
ing work under the terms of a fran
chise is an acceptance of it's terms and
conditions. City of Allegheny VS. Gas
Co. CPenn.) 33 Att. 704. 705. City Ry.
Co, VS.. Citizens Street r. II. Co. GU.
So Al l.. Ed. 1114, Ills Lincoln &
Kennebec Bank VS.. Richardson, l Greenl
49, 10 Am. Dec. "a. Illinois River r.
Co, VS.. thinner. 20 III. 654. e64. City
of Atlanta VS.. Gate City G. l.. Co, II
Ga. 106, 1T. State VS.. Dawson, % Ind
272, 274.
If the. utilities act is valid and con-
stitutional, then there can be no ques-
tion about the right of the commission
to regulate the service of the plaintiff
and all other like concerns and to fix
the rates 1t may charge, but it has no
right to exclude 1t from the field and
grant it's competitor an exclusive mon
opoly of the business.
Entertaining, as ! do, the opinion of
this case just expressed, it would be
useless for me to enter into any discus
sion as to the constitutional questions
presented. and l accordingly refrain
from any consideration of that phase
of the case. or the expression of any
opinion thereon.
1t has been iterated and reiterated
by counsel for the state and counsel
for the utilities commission and also
by counsel for both corporations here
represented, that the public utilities
act of this state does away with com
petition in Idaho SO far as all public
service corporations are concerned, and
that 1t provides for the creation of mon
opoles in all public utilities regulat-
ed by a commission. The opinion by
Mr.. Justice Sullivan adopts the same
view and asserts that this statute pro-
vides for regulated monopoles. | can
not concur in all the views advanced
on this phase of the question. but
think ii well that the construction tC
be placed on this law is made plain
so the people may know and under
/ stand the scope and purpose of the law
as viewed by the court and the utili-
ties commission.
! What | have said with reference to
4 the Twin Falls case is equally appli-
cable to the Pocatello case. There II
was proposed to generate electricity by
means of a Diesel Internal Combustion
oil engine. and a franchise was pro-
cured from the city prior to the utili-
ties act going into effect, and plans
and specifications were made and the
company paid for publication of the
ordinance and did some preliminary
work in the way of Investigations ant
survey of the field. Thereafter. anC
prior to commencement of proceeding:
before the commission the company or
dered and had constructed a So horse
power engine, which it installed in thu
city of Pocatello, and all together in
CURED an expense of about 1000. anC
still in the face of this state of facts
the utilities commission contend tina
they have the power to exclude thi
company from supplying light or powe
to the people of Pocatello. | repea
that the commission has the undoubte'
power to fix the rates to be charged
by this company and to regulate th
service by ii. but the legislature neve
dreamed of vesting the commission witt
the power to exclude the company from
serving the people of Pocatello unde
these conditions and to confer mon
opoly on the company already there
The order of the commission is clear
ly erroneous and ought TO he vacate
and set aside