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

l
2. The right to use the streets
for the purpose of distributing and
selling its gas was conferred on the
gas company on the condition that
! it would adhere to the maximum
rates prescribed, and so long as it
used the right it could not repudi>
| ate the burden of the condition.
| On the same day, February II.
defendants fled in the record a
istatute of South Carolina of Feb
ruary Is. 1922. providing That an
lordinance enacted by the mayor
and council of the City of Sumter.
South Carolina, done and ratified
September &c. 1911. entitled: "An
! ordinance to permit Edward L.
/ Rieha and associates to construct
and operate gas works in Sumter,
South Carolina be and the same is
hereby ratified, validated and con-
| frmed."
Without passing on the motion to
dismiss, the court in terms refused
an application for a temporary in
! junction. To protect the complain
ant, however, from irreparable in
jury which would result to it if
this court should hold the injunc-
/ ton should have been granted,
the district court ordered that the
defendants be enjoined from en-
forcing the rates provided by the
ordinance Of September 26, 1911,
pending the determination Of the
fappeal. on complainant giving
bond to secure the refund Of any
Ictarges collected in excess of those
rates.
The charter of the city Of Sum-
!! Ter confers upon the council pow
er so make all such ordinances
relative to the streets, roads, mar
kets. public squares. public scales,
weights, measures, fire department.
water supply, police and health of
said town as they may deem prop
err
/ The state statute relative to all
cities and towns of more than one
thousand inhabitants provides that
the city council shall have full
power to make, er;sain and estab-
I;iish all such rules. bylaws and reg
ulations and ordinances respecting
its roads. streets. markets, police.
health and order Of said city or
town as shall appear to them nee
essary and proper. for the security,
welfare and convenience of said
city or town, or for preserving the
health. peace. order and good gov
elnment within the same.
a city council has no power to
regulate rates unless it is plainly
granted by legislative authority.
Such power cannot be implied from
the legislative grant Of authority to
the city council of Sumter to; make
ordinances and regulations relative
to streets. ity. of Winchester VS..
Winchester Waterworks Co., 251 u
IS. 1872: Home Telephone Co. VS..
Los Angeles. 211e u S. 265, 273.
Section 3014. Code Of South Car
DINA. 1912 provides that munici-.
palities may grant for thirty years
exclusive franchise for furnishing
light and water by two-thirds vote
!of the council confirmed by the
vote cf a majority Of the qualified
electors. provided the ordinance or.
resolution shall fix "a maximum
rate. This statute has no applica-
ton, for the reason that no attempt
was made by the city council of
Sumter to grant an exclusive fran
chise, and it does not appear that
there was favorable two-third
vote. Of the city council or confr-
nation by majority of the quail
fed electors.
The statute of 1910. creating a
public service commission and en-
powering it to prescribe and regu-
late rates for gas. excepting the
city Of Sumter from its operation
does not confer on the council Of
that city the right to regulate rates.
The mere exception of the city of
Sumter could not have the effect Of
conferring powers On the city coun-
Gil Of Sumter which it did not be-.
fore possess. The city council of
Sumter therefore has not been
granted the power to regulate rates.
The transaction shows on Its face
that it was not an attempt on the
part OF the city council to regulate
rates Under its police power. or of
Rieha to submit to such regula-
ton. The intention and effort was
to make a binding contract, the
consideration to the city being that
its inlla bitants should have gas at
a rate which would not exceed the
maximum rates prescribed, the
consideration to Rieha: being that
he and his assigns should have the
right to lay their mains in the
streets and should have the right
for fifty years to charge any rate
they pleased within the maximum
limits. There was formal offer
by the city of the franchise on a
condition as to rates, and formal
acceptance and action by Rieha
This made binding contract If
the city had the power to make 1t.
Columbus Ry. P. & L. Co. VS.. Co
lumbus, 249 L. S. 500; Los Angeles
VS.. Los Angeles City Water Co., III
I. S. 55s.
The power to make ordinances
and regulations respecting streets