Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1922-09-22
DECISION WILL HAVE
FAR-REACHING EFFECT
Supreme Court Renders Opin.
ion in Case of Virginia VS..
Light and Power Company.
TRIBUNAL REvERsEs ITSELF
s"ecpS Aside All Attempts Made BY
Councils to Fix Rates Irrevo-
cably Since 1902,

Sweeping aside all attempts made
by City Councils in Virginia to 61
irrevocably rates OF public utilities
IN franchises granted since tho ef
fective date OF the Constitution of
1902. the Supreme Court OF Appeal,
at Staunton yesterday, held that tn,
state Corporation Commission has
the right, and is charged with IN,
duty, OF fixing just and reasonable
rates OF all such utilities. anything
In any ordinance To the contrary
Notwithstanding" 1t is expected tho
decision. which was in the case of
the Town of Victoria VS.. tho Victoria
Light and Power Company. will have
4 far-reaching effect.
Inc decision, however, is not unani-
nous The majority opinion Is by
Judge Robert r. Prentis, and is CON
CURED in by Judge Jesse +. West.
Judge Martin p. Burks concurs I'm the
decision bus not in the opinion. On
the other hand. Judge Frederick VIII
her Sims stands BY his own decision
In the clifton Forge cases of 1918,
by holding, in a dissenting opinion,
that the Constitution grants TO mum
cipalities the right to contract with
utilities as TO rates. and Judge Joseph
NJ. Kelly concurs In the opinion OF
Judge Sims.
Opinion Most Exhaustive.
Judge Prcntis' opinion is most ex-
haustive, and discusses the provi-
sions OF the Constitution and laws
ana precedents in other States and
IN the Federal courts. most com
pietely. cities. he points out, are
mere agents and creatures OF the
state. a city possesses no powers
or rights whatever except those
granted to II for convenience by the
state. and any such rights may be
taken away by the General Assem-
o!y, representative OF the whole peo-
pie, at It's pleasure. The Common
wealth Is the sovereign. possessing
all police power. and this power can
not be surrendered nor abridged, says
the Constitution. The provisions OF
the Constitution permitting cities TO
grant franchises are not grants of
power. Judge Prentis finds. but mere
~ limitations upon the prerogatives
of municipalities.
The Supreme Court. in the Victoria
case, specifically reverses itself by
setting aside the main points of its
findings In 1915 in the Virginia
Western Power Company cases, when
the Corporation Commission had de-
~'N'h ~ 10 chanEc
rates fixed by local franchises grant
ed under the provisions OF the pres
ent Constitution. The Supreme Court
then sustained the commissions de-
cision. The Victoria case is more
recent, the commission having found
that the franchise granted the light
ana power company was Invalid for
reasons involving the manner Of TAX
ing vote by the City Council The
court holds that the franchise is
valid. but that the commission
should fix the rates as the agent of
the sovereign, the State.
Further. says Judge Prcntis. the
Constitution provides repeatedly that
rates fixed in local franchises must
be reasonable" No one can tell
whether rate fixed today will be
reasonable ten or twenty years
hence; il may be too high or TOO low
CONTINUED on Page s. Col 4)