City of Philadelphia v. Western Union Tel Co.

• Decision Date: 28 October 1889
• Citation: 40 F. 615
• Parties: CITY OF PHILADELPHIA v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

40 F. 615

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

October 28, 1889

Syllabus by the Court

The city of Philadelphia is not authorized to tax a telegraph company occupying its streets and could not, even if authorized, tax a company engaged in interstate commerce.

An ordinance charging a corporation occupying the streets of a municipality license fees amounting, in all, to $16,000 per annum where the cost of supervising and controlling the corporation for the protection of property and person had for several years been only $3,500 annually, levies a tax, and the ordinance is unreasonable and void.

An ordinance charging license fees to an amount much greater than the cost of controlling and supervising the licensee cannot be sustained on the ground that demands might be made against the municipality on account of the licensee.

Chas F. Warwick, City Sol., and R. Alexander, Asst. City Sol., for plaintiff, cited City of Scranton v. Catterson, 94 Pa.St. 202; Willc. Mun. Corp. 927; Ang. & A. Corp. 298-300.

Read &amp Pettit, for defendant.

BUTLER J.

On the trial defendant presented the following point: 'Under the evidence in this case the license fee sought to be recovered by the plaintiff is much more than the cost of the regulation, and excessive-- it is therefore unreasonable in law and void-- and if you believe the evidence in the case your verdict must be for the defendant. ' The point was reserved, and the court submitted the case to the jury under the following instructions: 'The city of Philadelphia sues to recover license fees under the ordinance before you. Whether the ordinance is valid or not depends upon the question whether it is reasonable, as respects the amount required to be paid, by the defendant and other similar companies using lines of wire within the city. The city cannot tax these companies, and does not, as declared by counsel, seek to do so. Nor can it prohibit them from establishing and maintaining their lines but it can subject them to proper regulations and supervision, with a view to the protection of persons and property. It is the duty of the city to prescribe such regulations and conditions, and to exercise such supervision. If it failed in this it would be responsible to citizens who might be injured either in person or property. It is readily seen that the construction and maintenance of these lines subjects the city to serious responsibility, and considerable expenditure, and for this the city may demand indemnity and reimbursement. Thus you observe the question is, as before stated, is the ordinance reasonable? The city has power to...