Court Opinion

ID: 9826139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:24:14.780714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:52.169507
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Cothran :
I dissent upon the grounds: (1) That, under 32 Stat., 938, the Railroad Commission had authority to order the discontinuance of the street car service, for the reasons given in Order No. 268. (2) That to compel the operation of the street car lines at a loss would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, Const. U. S. (3) That sufficient substitutionary service is provided for in said order, and may be enforced by the Commission. ■
Mr. Justice Marion:
I am constrained to dissent. *131Very broadly indicated, without argument or any attempt fully to cite pertinent authority, the grounds of my dissent are:
1. The contract between the city and the predecessors in interest of the South Carolina Gas & Electric Company was made subject to the reserved police power of the State, and within that power can be changed by the State without impairing the obligation of the contract. Milwaukee Electric Railway v. Wisconsin Railroad Commission, 238 U. S., 174; 35 S. Ct., 820; 59 L. Ed., 1254. Town of Victoria v. Victoria, I. L. & P. Co,, 134 Va., 134; 114 S. E., 92; 28 A. L. R., 562. See Salt Lake City v. Utah Light & T. Co., 52 Utah, 210; 173 P. 556; 3 A. L. R., 715, considering and construing in this connection a constitutional provision similar to our Section 4, Art. 8, Const. 1895.
2. The order of the Railroad Commission was prima facie within the scope of the authority delegated to that Commission by the General Assembly, in the exercise of this reserved police power of the State. Sections 922 to 925, Civ. Code, 1912, Vol. 1, as amended by Act March 24, 1922, appendix, Volume I, Civ. Code, 1922, pp. 1785-1789. See City of Worcester v. Worcester C. S. Railway Co., 196 U. S., 539; 25 S. Ct, 327; 49 L. Ed., 591.
3. If so, the validity of the order should be tested in the manner and by the procedure prescribed by the Public Utilities Act, and in no view are the relators entitled to the remedy of mandamus.