Evening journal., 1918-07-03

fixed by the statute. We feel, however,
that so far as this question is concern
ed the decision referred 10 should be
controlling upon this court, although in
view Of the great weight OF modern au-
thorlty the Supreme Court Of the State
might very well lay down a different
rule from the one declared in the
/ Bowers case.
! But this Is not a case where the State,
/ through the agency Of the Utility Board.
/ is endeayoring to reduce the fare below
the sum which II had agreed might be
charged or to limit the right or power
that had been given TO the company as
In the Bowers case. Neither is 10 a case
where the company upon It's own mo-
tiOn had charged more than five cents,
which it had agreed not 10 exceed It is
a case where the State, which had fix
ed a maximum rate OF 1--WE cents. agrees.
through an agency it had created, that
the companies may charge a higher
rate, the other party to the contract
cOnsenting thereto. So that even though |
there was a contract binding on the |
parties that made il. 10 was possible for |
proper 10 do So
our conclusion, therefore. is that II |
there was a contract the parties theretol
could charge 1t provided the rights of |
the people were not thereby iniuriOusly |
affected. From what we have said, it is |
obvious that the Bowers case is dis |
tinguishable from the one now before |
the court, and that our conclusion is |
NJ in
in that case.
We come now TO the consideration Of !
the appellants last point, viz, that the |
act creating the Board of Public Utility !
Commissioners does not, when fairly |
construed, confer upon the board the
power to regulate fares when a rate |
had been already established by statute. |
Does the act creating the Board OF !
Public Utility Commissioners for the |
city OF Wilmington confer upon said /
hoard the power TO regulate the fares
to he charged by the railway companies
above mentlonedf
10 is difllcult TO escape the conviction
when the entire act Is considered, that
one Of its purposes was to regulate the
charges OF public utility Corporations
The powers given TO the board over
md controlling that 70 Is impossible 10
believe that the Legislature did not in
end that the power TO regulate fares
should be included. But there is pro
vision Of the act which, in the opinion
u the court, expressly gives such
powers viz, the provision TO hear and
Examine complaints concerning rates
,harged by any such public utility as
lerein defined and to make such recon-
nendations and orders as it may deem
proper concerning sucn rates"
When the board Is given power to
lear complaints concerning rates
charged by a railway company or other
public utility, and make such orders as
It may deem proper concerning such
rates, we must conclude that 10 had the
power to change any rate that the Legis-
.ature could have changed. Il was made
an agency Of the State and vested with
an the power the Legislature possessed
respecting The fixing Of rates for public
utilities in the city Of Wilmington sub
ject OF course, TO the right OF appeal
And this power is given, we think, not
only by implication from the general
and broad language Of the act, but also :
by express language.
i would be placing upon the statute
q construction entirely too narrow to {
say it means That an individual may
but not the company. 10 is q
hardly necessary TO say that tha act
was meant 20 be fair and useful to 9
10Th individual and company, and that
here might be conditions in which y
either would have cause to complain. '