City of Ft. Collins v. Public Utilities Com'n

• Decision Date: 07 February 1921
• Docket Number: 9746.
• Citation: 195 P. 1099,69 Colo. 554
• Parties: CITY OF FT. COLLINS v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

195 P. 1099

69 Colo. 554

CITY OF FT. COLLINS v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION et al.

No. 9746.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

February 7, 1921

Rehearing Denied March 7, 1921.

Petition for writ of review of an order as to telephone rates by the City of Ft. Collins against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado and the Mountain States Telephone &amp Telegraph Company.

Respondent Commission directed to annul its order and to dismiss proceedings before it.

frank J. Annis, of Ft. Collins, for petitioner.

Milton Smith, Charles R. Brock, and W. H. Ferguson, all of Denver (Elmer L. Brock, of Denver, of counsel), for respondents.

Frank L. Moorhead, of Boulder, amicus curiae.

DENISON J.

This case is brought here under the statute to review the order of the Public Utilities Commission as to telephone rates in Ft. Collins.

The city of Ft. Collins, after the passage of the Home Rule Amendment in 1912 (S. L. 1913, p. 669), adopted a charter which gives that city control of the rates to be charged by public utilities within its limits. A controversy has arisen as to whether, under these circumstances, the city has a right to control such rates, or whether, by virtue of the act of 1913 (S. L. 1913, p. 464) and the amendments thereto, such control belongs to the Public Utilities Commission of the state.

By the expediency or consequences of the decision of this question we cannot be governed. It is too late to further question the right to regulate rates on the ground of due process, and the question of the validity of the methods of regulation provided by the city of Ft. Collins is not before us. The present question is whether the control belongs to the State Commission.

We have held that, when a city has adopted such a provision before the passage of the Home Rule Amendment, the State Commission has no control of rates within that city. Denver v. Telephone Co., 184 P. 604; Pueblo v. Pub. Ut. Com., 187 P. 1026; Atchison, etc., Ry. Co. v. Pub. Ut. Com., 188 P. 747. We did this partly on the theory that the Twentieth Amendment of our Constitution gave a city the right to adopt such a charter and partly on the ground that the Home Rule Amendment ratified such provisions, they having been made before its passage. The present case presents the question whether without such ratification, the Twentieth Amendment, or the Home Rule Amendment, or both together, authorize the city to adopt such a provision.

It is clear that the Twentieth Amendment itself authorizes such an adoption. The arguments in the several opinions in the case of Denver v. Telephone Co., supra, seem to settle this question. The Home Rule Amendment was intended to reiterate unmistakably the will of the people that the power of a municipal corporation should be as broad as possible within the scope of a republican form of government of the state, and, viewed in that light, it is a valuable guide in interpreting the Twentieth Amendment.

Interpreting the Twentieth Amendment in the light of the Home Rule Amendment or without it, a municipal corporation has power to assume the regulation of rates, because such body may assume whatever power the Legislature might grant (Denver v Hallett, 34 Colo. 395, 397, 83 P. 1066), and the Legislature might grant the power to regulate rates (Home Telephone Co v. Los Angeles, 211 U.S. 265, 271, 29 S.Ct. 50, 53 L.Ed 176). See 184 P. 611. The two amendments, taken together, confirm this...