Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner's Court, 158 Ala. 363, Tampa v. Tampa Water Works Co., 45 Fla. 623, 34 So. 631. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 162 197, 222, 16 Sup. Ct. 661, 40 L. ed. 940, 948, 5 Int. ...... Page 77 172 105 .163, 164 U. S. Com. The Daniel Ball v. United States, 77 U. S. (10 Wall.) 557, 565, 19 L. ed. 999.... 113 106 Thomas & Houston El. Co. v. Simon, 20 Or. 60, 75, 25 Pac. 147, 116 262 Tilly v. Railroad. Commissioners, 4 Woods, 427, 5 Fed. 641. 72 94 Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott, 86 U. S. 666, 22 L. ed. 277 .... Trademark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 25 L. ed. 550.. Traynham v. Charleston & W. C. R. Co. (S. C.), 71 S. E. 813.... Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 27 Sup. Ct. 367, 51 L. ed. 523.... Union Pac. R. Co. v. Peniston, 85 U. S. (18 Wall.) 5, 31, 21 L. ed. 787...... 74 United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1, 15 Sup. Ct. 249, 39 L. ed. 325.. 99 United States v. Hoake, 187 Fed. 992.... 94 United States v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 115 Fed. 374. 100 99 98 Vicksburg Water Works Co. v. Vicksburg, 185 U. S. 82, 22 Sup. 172 Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557, 7 Sup. Ct. 4, 30 L. ed. 244... 66 Wadsworth v. Union Pac. R. Co., 18 Colo. 600, 33 Pac. 515, 36 Am. St. Rep. 309, 23 L. R. A. 812...... Ward v. State ex rel. Parker, 154 Ala. 227, 45 So. 655. Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 281, 23 L. ed. 347.. 98 West v. Kansas City Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229, 31 Sup. Ct. Page ..103, 165 564, 55 L. ed. 716.... West Chester & P. R. Co. v. Miles, 55 Pa. 209, 93 Am. Dec. 744... 134 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Commercial Milling Co., 218 U, S. 406, 31 Sup. Ct. 59, 54 L. ed. 1088..... .163, 166 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Crovo, 220 U. S. 364, 31 Sup. Ct. 399, Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hughes, 104 Va. 241, 51 8. E. 225..... 40 L. ed. 1107.... 171 100 63 .63, 95 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Meyer, 38 Fed. 53, 3 L. R. A. 449. 105 857, 93 Am. St. Rep. 973.... 100 Whitson v. Franklin, 34 Ind. 392. 163 Wight v. United States, 167 U. S. 512, 17 Sup. Ct. 822, 42 L. ed. 258.. Wilcox v. People, 46 Colo. 382, 104 Pac. 408.. 114 ..101, 104 Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 277, 21 Sup. Ct. 131, 45 L. ed. 189... 99 Williams v. Molter, 187 Fed. 700...... 105 Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 180, 24 L. ed. 99...65, 71, 83 Winslow v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 70 S. C. 344, 60 S. E. 709... 97 115, 45 L. ed. 194... Wood v. Election Commissioners, 58 Cal. 561. Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 21 Sup. Ct. ..66, 83, 135, 181, 185, 186 111 THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT § 1. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. California Public Utilities Act. § 2. The Illinois Railroad and Warehouse Commission Act. The Interstate Commerce Commission Act. § 3. § 4. Similar Governmental Policy in Other Countries. § 1. California Public Utilities Act is not new legislation in an untrodden field, but is the most recent development of the principle of corporation control by the state, rate regulation, and the like, and is welcomed by the corporations, who are anxious that just and remunerative rates shall be established and maintained. The California Act is one of the most advanced that has yet been adopted in any state. The Commission is given more absolute power than by any other of the similar acts, unless an exception is to be made in favor of the Minnesota Act of 1887, in which act the Railroad Commission of that state was given absolute power and its action made final. This Minnesota Act cut off all right of appeal to the courts, and for this reason was held to be unconstitutional.1 At first these acts merely aimed to control rates, prevent unfair preferences, prohibit rebates, protect life, and the like; but the tendency now is to extend to complete corporate management and control; some of the acts,-and particularly the California Act, 1 See post, c. 3, § 57. (1) -going to the extent of prohibiting stock and bond issues, and the like, without the consent of the Commission being first procured, and enforcing these regulations by penalties prescribed. 3 While provisions of this character have been introduced in the statutes of several of the states, few or none of them go to the extent of the provision found in the California Act. Thus, the Nevada legislature in 1911 passed an act which gives a Railroad Commission authority over all public utilities," the same as does the California Act, but does not give authority or control over the capital stock, bonds, nor other securities of corporations. The Ohio legislature of 1911 passed an act similar to the California Act, and broader than the Nevada Act, in that the Commission created by the Ohio Act is given full power and supervision over security issues and mergers. Under the Oregon Public Utilities Act, which has been held up by referendum, there is no restriction as to stocks or bonds; the Washington Act contains no stock or bond restrictions; but the Wisconsin Act provides that "no stock nor bonds, . . shall be issued until there shall have been recorded upon the books of the corporation the approving certificate of the Railroad Commission," and makes all stock, certificates of stock, bonds and other evidence of indebtedness, issued contrary to the provisions of the act, void. § 2. Illinois Railroad and Warehouse Commission Act of 1871, giving to the Commission authority to fix passenger and freight rates on all railroads for 2 Nev. Laws 1911, §§ 82, 322, 459. 8 Nev. Laws 1911, § 376. Ohio Sess. Laws 1911, vol. 102, p. 549 et seq. 5 Or. Gen. Laws 1911, p. 483 et seq. 6 See 2 Wash Stats., par. 8627. 7 Wis. Stats. 1907, pp. 413, 1753, 1754. 8 Id., pp. 414, 1753-1758. |