Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1914-06-28
Supreme Court Upholds
Constitutionality Of
the Act
OF CONTROL IS
SUSTAINED BY COURT
Commission Can Permit or
Forbid Companies From
Entering Fields Already
Served by Other, Com
panies.

The state public utilities commits
sion and its right to permit or forbid
power companies from entering fields
already served by other companies is
upheld by the state supreme, court in
its decision reached yesterday in the
case of the Idaho Power G. Light COM
pany VS.. ]. A. Blomquist, A. p Ram
stedt and D. w. Standrod as the pub
lie utilities commission. The same
case covers the petition of the Beaver
River Power company against the COM
mission. Justice Sullivan wrote the
opinion. Judge Walters. sitting in
place of Justice Stewart, concurred.
Chief Justice Ailshie wrote a dissent
ing opinion.
The Idaho Power & Light company
sought to enter the city of Twin Falls
to furnish electric power. a field al
ready occupied by the Great Shoshone
& Twin Falls Power company The
Beaver River company was desirous of
entering the field at Pocatello, served
by the Southern Idaho Power COM
pany. Both secured franchises from
the cities. shortly prior to the going
into effect of the public utilities law
early in 1913.
Complaints Were Filed.
Last November complaints were filed
before the public utilities commission.
charging that the new companies
should not be permitted to extend their
operations into the occupied fields
without first securing certificates OF
public convenience and necessity from
the commission. under the provisions
of the public utilities law. The COM
mission upheld this view, and forbade
the Idaho and the Beaver River COM
panies from entering the contested
fields without such certificate. Both
applied to the supreme court in this
original proceeding for writs of review
of the commissions action, which is
now sustained by the majority opinion
of the supreme court.
The companies involved, in antici-
patton Of the decision Of the supreme
court. have applied to the utilities
commission for the certificates required
by the law, and the next stop in their
attempts to extend their operations in
the Twin Falls and Pocatello fields will
be the hearing by the commission on
these applications.
The power companies were represents
ed in the proceeding by Hawley,
Puckett & Hawley. The commissions
cause was upheld by Attorney General
]. H. Peterson and his assistants, E. O.
Davis, j. ]. Guheen and T. c. Coffin,
and s. Fl. Hays. attorney for one of
the other power companies that brought
the original complaint before the COM
mission. Richards & Haga and Nc
Keen f. Morrow appeared as friends
of the court.
Public Utilities Laws Reviewed.
Justice Sullivan's opinion reviews
and summarizes the public utilities laws
Of Is states similar to that of the
Idaho law: reviews the decisions that
have declared these laws constitutional
and valid; and investigates exhaust
ively the theory that the constitution
the delegation by the legisia-
ture of its authority to regulate public
corporations. 1t finds the law
Of the session of 1918 creating the COM
mission constitutional and carrying out
the police authority OF the state; and
1t upholds the act and order of the
in the power cases as with
in the right and duty of the commits
sion as laid down by the law.
Inc contentious OF the plalnt11I9
were mainly two: that they were in
of vested rights In the
given them by the cities be-
'ore the utilities law became effective.
and that such rights are expressly pro-
.ected by the statute; and second, that
he statute permits power companies to
increase the capacity OF existing
Giants and market the products thsre-
II without such certificate"
The majority opinion declares that
he franchises in question had not be-
.ome vested right because they had
aot been accepted by the companies or
confirmed by actual work having been
lone on the new lines, prior to the
aw taking effect and that the proviso
n section asa of the law. just quoted,
s nugatory and contradictory to the
intent OF the law itself and therefore to
De disregarded.
Chief Justice Ailshie. in his dissent
ng opinion. says he believes the com-
,anies had such vested rights, and
hat the clause in dispute was Intended
Is the legislatures protection to coma