Mclain v. Public Utilities Commission
| Decision Date | 01 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | 18331 |
| Citation | 110 Ohio St. 1,143 N.E. 381 |
| Parties | Mclain Et Al. v. Public Utilities Commission |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Public Utilities Commission - Motor transportation companies - Certificates of public convenience or necessity - Section 614.84 et seq., General Code (110 O. L., 211) - Who required to secure certificates and procedure governing applications - Facts to be considered in granting certificates.
3.In determining whether public convenience and necessity require such motor transportation service, the Commission shall consider whether the public proposed to be served by such motor transportation company have or have not adequate common carrier transportation service Independent of the service proposed to be rendered by the applicant, and whether the additional service proposed to be rendered by the applicant will result In the public receiving more adequate or less adequate service.
This cause was instituted by the filing of applications by the respective plaintiffs in error before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for certificates of public necessity and convenience to operate motor transportation vehicles.
The plaintiff in error John B. McLain made application to operate one vehicle for through limited service from Columbus to Portsmouth, through Franklin county, South Bloomfield and Circleville in Pickaway county, Hopeville Chillicothe, and Massieville in Ross county, Waverly and Piketon in Pike county, and through Lucasville to Portsmouth in Scioto county, and return, over the public streets, roads and highways, by same route. The plaintiff in error F Fissell made application to operate one vehicle over the same route; the plaintiff in error T. R. Jones made application to operate two vehicles over the same route; the plaintiff in error L. S. Cullison made application to operate one vehicle over the same route; and the plaintiff in error Ray Stephenson made application to operate one vehicle over the same route. The evidence before the Commission disclosed that the plaintiffs in error McLain, Fissell and Jones began operation August 27, 1923; that the plaintiffs in error Cullison and Stephenson began operations over the proposed route on July 21, 1923; that prior thereto, to wit, from June 16, 1923, they had operated over the route between Columbus and Chillicothe; that the number of persons hauled each day in each machine averaged 17; and that in other respects they had each and all complied with the provisions of the act and the rules and regulations of the Public Utilities Commission.
The evidence further disclosed that the Scioto Valley Railway & Power Company operates a third-rail interurban railway parallel to the route over which the applicants sought a certificate from Columbus to Chillicothe; that between those points it hauls on an average of 1,800 persons per day; that it is equipped to haul more than twice that many; that its service is hourly and adequate to accommodate all persons desiring to be transported between Chillicothe and Columbus; that the operation of the bus line prior to the date of the hearing had resulted in a substantial decrease in the number of passengers hauled by the railway company; and that it would not be able to continue the character and extent of service unless such patronage was regained, upon which evidence the Public Utilities Commission found and ordered that no public convenience or necessity required the issuing of certificates to the plaintiffs in error, from which finding and order error is prosecuted here.
Mr. John F. Carlisle, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Beecher W. Wattermire and Mr, Oscar W. Newman, for defendant in error Scioto Valley Ry. & Power Co. Mr, C. C. Crabbe, attorney general, and Mr. John W. Bricker, for the defendant in error the Public Utilities Commission.
This cause brings to this court for construction, among other things, an act "conferring jurisdiction upon the Public Utilities Com. mission over the transportation of persons or property for hire in motor vehicles, and providing for the supervision and regulation of such transportation," found in 110 Ohio Laws, at page 211, passed March 29, 1923, filed in the office of the secretary of state April 28, 1923, and in effect July 27, 1923.
While the question of the status of the several applicants for certificates of convenience and nec- essity, grOwing out of the different dates on which such applicants began operation with respect to the date of the filing of the act in the office of the secretary of state and its time of taking effect, was raised before the Public Utilities Commission, and 18 raised here, the majOr question is the power conferred by the act upon the Commission.
It is the contention Of plaintiffs in error that in determining the public convenience and necessity under the act the Commission is limited to an inquiry whether the territory which an applicant seeks to serve was at the time of the application being served by other motor-propelled vehicle Operated over the public streets, roads, or highways for hire, Or if so served, whether the service was adequate; while the defendants in error contend that in determining the public convenience and necessity the scope of the inquiry will be whether public convenience and necessity require further common carrier transportation in the territory which the applicant seeks to serve.
To adopt the view of the plaintiffs in error we must impute to the Legislature a purpose to enact a law ostensibly for the benefit of the public, but which in its operation would limit to a mere choice which of several persons, corporations, or companies should operate a bus line upon its public streets, roads, and highways as a common carrier. In our form of government the only excuse for any law, whether it be law by tradition, legislative enactment, or judicial pronouncement, is that it will serve the public weal.
The court's in construing a statute, where a reasonable interpretation can be gIven to it which will make it operate for the welfare of the general public, as distinguished from the welfare of certain individuals, groups, or classes of individuals, will not impute to the Legislature the unworthy purpose of having intended to enact a law for the benefit of certain individuals, groups, or classes of individuals, as distinguished from the public.
The first sentence of Section (6l4-87 of- the act (110 O. L., 215), "No sued motor transportation company shall begin to operate any motor propelled vehicle for the transportation of persons or property, or both, for compensation, between fixed termini or over a regular or irregular route in this state, without first obtaining from the public utilities commission a certificate declaring that public convenience and necessity require such operation, Rio Utilities Commission. That discretion is con-trolled by the existence or nonexistence of certain physical conditions in the territory to be served, which do or do not make such service a public convenience and necessity. The determination of the existence or nonexistence of such a condition is vested in the Public Utilities (commission, without any legislative limitation or restriction as to the character of circumstances and physical situations which the Commission may consider in making such determination.
The Commission upon hearing found that the Scioto Valley Railway & Power Company, "according to the record, is handling on the Columbus-Chillicothe Division an average of 1,800 passengers per day; the facilities of the Steele bus line [a bus line which has operated between Chillicothe and Portsmouth for some years] are only half used; the passenger carrying facilities of the traction line are over half idle the general public use the...
To continue reading
Request your trial