Great Falls tribune., 1921-12-21
COMMISSION UPHELD
BY SUPREME COURT
IN BILLINGS CASE
Judgment Of District Rench in
Yellowstone County Is
Affirmed.
Special to The Tribune.


Helena, Dec. 20.-The state eupreme
court has handed down a decision af-
firming the judgment of the district
court of Yellowstone county and up
holding the ruling of the public service
commission of Montana IN the case Of
the Billings Utility company against the
public service commission. The COM
The Billings Utility company asked
for an increase in rates to consumers
for the furnishing of heat. The COM
mission declined to allow the increase,
and the company appealed to the dis
trict court, which ruled in favor Of the
public secrive commission. The COM
pany then appealed to the state SUI
preme court and yesterdays decision
was the result.
In deciding the case, the opinion,
which is written by Commissioner JOS
eph r. Jackson, highly compliments u.
G.. Toomey, counsel for the commission
on the excellent brief presented to the
court in support Of his contention as to
the law. The court says:
Commends Brief
"At the outset we cannot refrain
from comment on the splendid brief
flied herein on the part Of the respond
ent, prepared by counsel for the public
service commission. Assistance of such
material character is greatly appreciat-
ed. 1t aids the court in collecting the
authorities applicable, and arriving at
an understanding and determination i'll
such an important case, with little
waste of valuable time in research"
The supreme court holds that court
has no power to substitute its judgment
for that of commission making rates
when they have been made lawfully and
reasonably. In concluding his opinion,
upholding the lower court, the supreme
court says:
Cannot Substitute Judgment
'The court has not the power to
substitute its judgment for that Of the
commission, nor can it set the commits
sion's conclusions aside when they have
been made lawfully and reasonably,
within the proper sphere of authority.
There has been no attempt to make an
exhaustive statement of the principle
involved, but in cases thus far decided,
it has been settled that the orders Of
the commission are final unless % be-
yond thes power which it could consti-
tutionally exercise or (2) beyond it's
statutory power; or 81 based upon a
mistake Of law. But questions of fact
may be involved in the determination
of questions of law, SO that an order,
regular on it's face, may be set aside
if it appears that (4) the rate is so low
as to be confiscatory and in violation of
the constitutional prohibition against
taking property without the due pro-
cess Of law; or % if the commission
acted SO arbitrarily and unjustly as to
fix rates contrary to evidence, or with
out evidence to support it; or (6) IL
the authority therein involved has been
exercised in such an unreasonable man
ner as to cause it to be within the
elementary rule that substance, and not
the shadow, determine the validity of
the exercise Of power.
Lower Court Upheld
However, with respect to both mat
ters complained of, the burden of proof
is upon the plaintiff company. The bur-
den of showing that the rate established
by the commission was unlawful, un-
authorized, unreasonable or erroneous,
was plainly not sustained. There was
ample evidence to support the action
of the commission, and the court was
in duty bound to fully affirm its con-
clusion."