The Bemidji daily pioneer., 1918-02-02
CHARGE IN EXCESS
OF AUTH0RIzED
FRANCHISE SAYS
JUDGES DECISION
Franchise Granted Electric Company
/. Constitutes Contract and Can't
Be Camouaaged. ii.
COURT HAS NO RIGHT TO ,..l
READ OTHER CONDITIONS
Contract is Binding Upon Both
Parties and Must Be Given
Full Force and Effect. :.

In handing down his decision Ii
favor of the city of Bemidj il VS.. tn
Minnesota Electric Light and PoWe
company, which sought to charg
$1.10 for all monthly bills Of ever,
consumer, even those who are un
able to pay only what their mete
registers, Judge Stanton holds tha
the $1.1O that the company, endeaY
ored to secure is a "CHARGE II
EXCESS OF THAT AUTHORIZED
BY THE FRANCHISE =. &st 5g.z#
@ In his decision, Judge Stanton thu
analyses the matter In, reaching hi
conc nclusiOns:.&s &s-IS-,}, ~ = ,fz wv. II
~. THE complaint sufficiently
4 AYERS the threatened violation
I Of the terms of the franchise !.
Ordinance No. f42) to state a i
cause Of action. The question
. thus presented on the order to :.
y show cause is plainly: Does the
II proposed minimum charge of
E $1.10 per month amount to a
r. charge in excess of that auth
orized by the -franchise? An
affirmative answer to this in
quiry settles the controversy
and entities plaintiff to !. the
prayed-for injunction. .,4 ;. :: 2. :.
Merely Camoufage.
1T is the contention Of de-
fendant that the minimum
8. charge is only readiness to
serve charge for electricity fur \
nished; and it is urged that the
franchise does not prohibit a: 4
service charge. True, the fran
chise does not in express terms .
prohibit service Charge but
by plain implication and legal
effects it does prohibit such -
charge, because Its fails to pro-
vide for any other or greater
charge that ~ cents per kilo-
watt for electricity consumed.
. The franchise constitutes a con-
tract between the defendant
company and it's patrons and
the court has no right to read
into it conditions not clearly
intended. - ~.
o.. Bound BY Contract. H.
" Defendant also asserts
Il Quoting from it's reply brief)
that the minimum charge "is q
charge IN ADDITION to the
charge made for electricity
and argues that therefore it
cannot be regarded as in any
way affecting the cost to the
consumer. Of electricity furnish
ed. It seems to me that the de-
fendant is bound by the terms
=. of the franchise to furnish elec-
tricity at not to exceed - cents
per kilOwatt and that such pro-
vision must necessarily, mean
that all the instrumentalities
and things required to furnish
the electricity must be provided
by the defendant company, thus
precluding the company from
making any charge for any pur-
pose IN ADDITION to the maxi
mum charge as set forth in the
franchise.
-., Can't Switch Deal. =
= ~. THAT a minimum charge to
small consumers, such as the de-.
fendant company seeks to i'm
pose, is just and reasonable and
should be approved, in the alb
sence Of a contract which for
bids it, is almost universally
held by the courts and the pub
lie utility commissions Of the
: country. But the contract In
this case, as made by the fran
chise, binds the parties and must
be given full force and effect.
Cant Burden Little Users"
Gas said in Louisville Gas. Co.
VS.. Dulaney, SO l.. r. A. (Ky.), :
1875: Presumably the company
was aware, when it obtained its
charter and established it's mon
opoly, that there would be small
. consumers as we'll as large ones,
and there would be less profit
in furnishing the one class than
the other; but it did not, on that
account, reject the charter, or
obtain the right to add to the
price of the small consumers
BILL" H..