Evening journal., 1918-07-03
continue From FIrst Page.l }

| AiNIUtAk H. NhAhr VI ANAileNA ANA hAi
traction company. argued that an ap
peal in the meaning OF the law mean.
hearing on the record excepting In
the case OF an appeal from Q Justice
OF the peace lie declared that the rec
ord shows that a 7-cent fare was asked
for several days prior TO the hearing
and that the public knew OF this
amendment to its first request OF
cents He argued for a hearing only
on the record, as did City Solicitor
! Thomas +. Bayard, representing tho
Utility Board, who followed Mr.. Ward
The case should be heard from the
beginning, declared Mr.. liarman, re
sumlng his argument lie claimed that
upon no other basis could the merits
Of the case be properly gone into, that
the record which otherwise would be
handed up for review by the court
would be one cooked up" by the trac-
ton company and the utilities COM
mission in cshoots" and what was
necessary was to put the real facts be-
fore the court.
Il represent the people Of the city
we feel that we have been wronged
and we want our rights" declared Mr.,
! Harman.
The decision Of the court upholdlng
/ the petitions for a 7-oent fare follows
/ Pennewill, G.. j., delivering the opinion
OF the court:
The Wilmington City Railway Com
pany and the Front and Union Street
Railway Company were Incorporated
by special act Of the Legislature before
the passage Of the General Incorpora-
ton Law, and by amendment to their
charters the maximum rate OF fare was
fixed at i've cents, IN the following Ian
guage: And the said company shall not
at any time be allowed 10 charge a
greater amount than five cents for any
one fare. ticket or ride In their cars
through the said city"
On the i4th day of June 1913, the
Board OF Public Utility Commissioners
made an order granting TO said rail-
way companies the right to charge
seven cents for a fare, and from that
order this appeal was taken.
The Board OF Public Utility Commis-
sloners was created by an act OF the
Legislature, and the parts OF the act
material to this case may be stated as
follows:
The said board shall have supervl-
sion over all public utilities operating
within the limits Of the said city Of
Wilmington
THE said board shall have general /
supervision over all public utilities as
herein defined. within the limits OF the
city OF Wilmington, and shall have
power, after hearing upon notice, by
order in writing TO hear and
examine complaints concerning rates
charged by any such public utility as
herein defined, and TO make such rec
concentrations and orders as it may
deem proper concerning such rates"
There are many other powers con
ferred upon the board by the act, and
they are for the most part OF super
ylsory character
The appellants deny the authority OF
The board TO grant the railway compa-
MES the right 10 charge a higher fare
than that fixed by statute. viz. lve
cents. because
First. The constitution OF this State
vests all legislative power In the Gen. /
eral Assembly. and such power cannot 1
be delegated 10 any other body The
fixing Of rates 10 be charged by a rail-
way company Is a legislative power,
and therefore. the act Of the board was
without authority and void.
Second. II the Legislature can con
Ter upon said board the power to regu-
ate rates under some circumstances 70
.annot grant an increase beyond the !
maximum rate flXed by statute or by .
he charter OF The company. because
UGH an act would impair the obligation :
4 contract made between the State !
nd the company.
Third. The act creating said board I
when fairly construed, cannot be held /
o mean that the board has, under a .
light 10 regulate fares, the power to :
stabllsh rates when o maximum rate ,
Il fare had already been fixed by stat {
tie.
Fourth. II ~ Legislature could dele
rate TO the Board OF Public Utility
the right TO fix rates OF
ARE TO be charged by said railway
companies, and the act OF the board
would not be an impairment Of a con-
tract between the state and the COM
panles, but rather a police regulation
then such right could not be conferred
except by express language, and GER
tainly not by implication. The act did
not confer such right by express Ian
guage, or even by implication.
We will consider these grounds urg-
ed by the appellants, in the order in
which they are stated.
In support Of the first ground. the
well known case OF Rice vs. Foster, Z
Harr. 479 (is9) is cited.
The court are clearly OF the opinion
hat this case is not applicable to the
present one. In the Blce-Foster case
he Legislature had passed AN act
the people to decide by bal
OF whether the license to retail intoxi-
atlng liquor shall be permitted among
hem 10 involved the right Of the
leople Of the county 10 pass a legisla-
i've act.
In the case before the court the Leg
stature created a state agency and in
ested that body with power to per-
orm a legislative act, VIZ to regulate ,
he rates that city railways should !
barge. In one case IL was the delega-
ion Of legislative power to the people, :
nd in the other it was the exercise Of
legislative power by an agency Of the =
'tate, just as it would have been II the =
'ower had been given TO the municipal y
ty, the city OF Wilmington The dis :
inchon, we think. is clear. and the =
'ase referred TO cannot, therefore. be .
)ut, but can find none. e
Il know we loved each other dearly C
md wanted that homa for ot,reol,-ss S