The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1922-07-29

tract 3.S TO SUCH IdlSS, oily 3dIC 3AA-
ed by such contract was subject
to regulation under the police pow
er of the state. Milwaukee Elec-
tric r. & L. Cows Railroad Com
mission. 23S U. S. ia; yicksburs
VS.. v1.ksburg Waterworks Co., 206
u. S. sos: Pugit Sound T. L. & ?
Co, V. Reynolds. 244 U. S. 574.
Among cases holding such a
transaction to be binding
contact beyond the control
Of the states police power when,
and only when. the right to con-
tract is in express terms conferred
by statute on the municipality are
Cleveland VS.. Cleveland City Ry.
Co. 1914 u. S. SIT: Columbus r. P.
& l.. Co. VS.. Columbus, 249 .. S.
399; vicksburg VS.. Vicksburg ".
Co. 206 U. S. 1876; Detroit Ry. Co.
VS.. Michigan, 242 U. S. 23S.
Comparing Owensboro VS.. Cum
berland T. & T. Co. 230 Z. S. 23S,
with the other cases cited, we reach
this conclusion: If the state had
conferred on the city Of Sumter In
express language the power to make
an irrevocable contract for rates,
the grant would have been a sur
render of the states police power to
change the rate fixed by the con-
tract. The grant Of power which
was made to the city of Sumter not
being in express terms to make an
irrevocabIe contract but only to
make regulations and ordinances
with respect to. streets, the city was
empowered thereby to contract for
the use of the streets for gas mains
on such terms and conditions as it
saw fit. but any contract made in
respect of rates was subject to dis
placement by the exercise by the
state of its police power to regu-
late, rates. Therefore the ordi-
nance OF the city granting the use
Of the streets for gas, mains with
conditions as to rates to be chraged,
accepted and acted upon by Rieha
in whose favor the franchise was
granted, became a contract binding
on both parties. subject to the ex-
ercise by the state of its police
power to regulate rates. Since the
state has not undertaken to exercise
its right to alter the rates contract
ed for. they are still binding on
both parties and are beyond the
control of the court. The courts
cannot grant relief against rates
named in a contract binding on
the parties. Southern Iowa Elec.
Co. VS.. Charlton, 2s1 U. S. 529.
So far we have dealt with the
case as if the ratifying statute had
not bene passed. Had the ordi-
nance granting the franchise to
Rieha on his acceptance Of its
terms been ratified by the legisla-
ture at the time. it would mani
festly nave been equivalent to an
express grant Of power to the city
of Sumter to contract for rates.
Just as efTectual as IT such power
had been embraced in the charter
of the city. In any view the ordi-
nance and its acceptance lacked
only legislative sanction and author
ity to become an irrevocable con-
tract. A ratifying statute passed at
the time would have given that
sanction and authority. The statute,
though not actually enacted until
both parties had; acted upon the
contract which they undertook to
make. has the same force and ef-
feet as il it had been passed con-
temporaneously with the ordinance
It impaired no constitutional rights
Of the gas company.
The only semblance Of right as
serted by complainant is the right
to- repudiate an agreement, admit
tedly binding in both law and
equity as contract except for the
lack Of the sanction of the gen.
eral assembly of the state. Having
accepted the agreement, and receiv-
ed the benefits Of it. the gas COM
panv has no ground to complain OF
its subsequent legislative sanction
and ratification. Randall VS..
Krieger, % Wall. 1S7, % L. Ed.
l24; Watson VS.. Mercer. s Pet. SIS.
s L. Ed. SCI: Ewell VS.. Daggs. 10S
U. S. 143, % L. Ed. 682; Westside
Belt r. Co. Us. Pittsburg Construc-
ton Co.. 219 Z. S. 90; 55 L. Ed.
107; Saterlee rs. Mathewson, 2
Pet. $50. Z L. Ed. 45S: Gross vs..
United States Mortgage Co., 10S U.
S. AT. 81 L. Ed. T95.
It may be that apart from its
general police power the state of
South Carolina has the power to
waive or change, with the consent
of the gas company. any contract as
to rates made with the city of Sum
ter as municipality. a munich
pal corporation is simply a politi-
cal subdivision Of the state and ex-
lists b. virtue of the exercise Of the
power of the state through its legis-
lative department" Worcester VS..
Street Railway Co, 1s6 L. S. SO.
We are not called upon to decide
whether the gas company may OBJ
tain relief under the statute Of
March "a, 1922. conferring upon
the reilroad commission the right
to regulate rates of every public
,1tility'' in tho state
Affirmed.
-c>~->-
Merchants Meet