Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/224/330/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:43:25+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 224 › Pomona v. Sunset Tel. & Tel. Co.
A provision in a state constitution that municipal corporations may establish and operate public utility plants, and that persons and corporations may establish and operate works for supplying public service upon such conditions and under such regulations as the municipality may prescribe is a step towards municipal control or ownership, and is not a grant to others of a right to occupy streets without the consent of the municipality; nor does it limit the municipality to regulations under its police power. The conditions are of general import, and so held as to the provision in Article XI, § 19, of the constitution of California as amended October 11, 1911.
There is no sufficient reason why this Court should not follow the highest court of California in construing "telegraph" corporations as used in § 536 of the Civil Code of that state as not including " telephone " corporations.
Where a statute is amended so as to bring a certain class thereunder, the amendment to take effect at subsequent date, before which date another act is passed relating to the same subject with a general repealing act enumerating exceptions, the amended statute is repealed, subject only to the exceptions before any rights accrue under the amendment.
In the absence of any apparent policy inducing it, it will be assumed that an exception to the repealing clause of an act to regulate franchises of "lines doing an interstate business" was made unwillingly and because the legislature assumed it was bound to exempt such lines from regulations.
In this case, held that, under the statutes of California, a telephone corporation operating interstate and local lines in Pomona, a city of the fifth class, obtained rights to maintain its main line in the streets, but not its local posts and wires except subject to regulations of the city.
The facts, which involve the validity and constitutionality of certain provisions of the constitution and statutes of California in regard to the use of streets by telephone companies, are stated in the opinion.
This is a bill brought by the appellee, a California corporation, to restrain the City of Pomona from removing the appellee's poles and wires from the streets of the city, and from preventing the appellee's placing further poles and wires in the streets. The circuit court dismissed the bill, 164 F. 561, but the decree was reversed and an injunction granted by the circuit court of appeals. 172 F. 829. Two of the grounds originally relied upon were that the appellee, being a telegraph as well as a telephone company, had rights under the Act of Congress of July 24, 1866, c. 230, 14 Stat. 221 (Rev.Stat. §§ 5263 et seq.), that were infringed, and that the conduct of the city had given rise to a contract. These are no longer pressed, but they warranted taking the case to the circuit court of appeals. Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397, 192 U. S. 407. The remaining ground is that the Constitution of California, as amended in 1911, or the statutes of the state, contained a grant with which the Constitution of the United States does not permit the city to interfere. This is the only argument pressed here. Unless the appellee got a grant from one of these two sources, it has no right to occupy the streets.
"Persons or corporations may establish and operate works for supplying the inhabitants with such service upon such conditions and under such regulations as the municipality may prescribe under its organic law, on condition that the municipal government shall have the right to regulate the charges therefore."
We agree with the appellants that the amendment seems intended as a step in the direction of municipal ownership or control. The words, "upon such conditions," etc., are not to be confined to police powers, which are conferred by § 11 of the same article, but are of general import. If the municipal corporation does not see fit to establish the public works itself, it may let others do it, but its power to impose conditions excludes the notion that the Constitution alone is a grant to others of a right to occupy the streets without its consent.
"Telegraph . . . corporations may construct lines of telegraph . . . along and upon any public road or highway . . . and may erect poles . . . in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road."
174 U. S. 761, the section, until amended, did the appellee no good. On March 20, 1905, however, the section was amended so as to include telephone corporations, so that, if that were all, the case of the appellee would be clear, the City of Pomona not having been organized under provisions of the constitution that withdrew certain cities from the operation of general laws. See Ex Parte Helm, 143 Cal. 553; Sunset Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Pasadena, 118 P. 796, 803.
"every franchise or privilege to erect or lay telegraph or telephone wires, to construct or operate street or interurban railroads, . . . or to exercise any other privilege whatever hereafter proposed to be granted"
of general application, and are of opinion that they cannot be supposed to have had the narrow operation that would be left to them if there were in force a grant from the state of almost universal scope. Until the state court shall decide otherwise, we must take § 536 to have been repealed, subject to the exception contained in the later act, before any grant or right under it had accrued to the appellee.
doing a state and local business. This appears by the bill and the finding of the circuit court, not disturbed above, as to what actually was done. We are of opinion that the city's interpretation was correct.
The result is that the appellee must be taken to have a grant of the right to keep its main through lines in the streets of Pomona, but not to maintain the posts and wires by which it connects with subscribers. So far as appears, the city attacks only the latter, and therefore no present ground is shown for the bill. But ,as the line of distinction may be delicate and questions may arise, the bill will be dismissed without prejudice.

References: v. 
 § 19
 § 536
 v. 
 § 11
 v. 
 § 536