Okla. Light & Power Co. v. Corp.

• Decision Date: 30 October 1923
• Docket Number: Case Number: 12763
• Parties: OKLAHOMA LIGHT & POWER CO. v. CORPORATION COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1923 OK 881

220 P. 54

96 Okla. 19

OKLAHOMA LIGHT & POWER CO. v. CORPORATION COMMISSION et al.

Case Number: 12763

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: October 30, 1923

Syllabus

¶0 1. Statutes--Subjects and Titles.

Section 57, art. 5, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, providing every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, is satisfied if the act has but one general subject and that is fairly indicated by the title. It may have many details, but if they all relate to the same general subject or object, they are properly included therein. The purpose of this provision of the Constitution was to forbid the Legislature from embracing in any one act two or more unconnected subjects.

2. Monopolies--Restraint of Trade--Statute.

Section 1 of the act of June 10, 1908, art. 1, chap. 83, Session Laws 1907 and 1908, page 750, sec. 11017, Comp. Stat. 1921, provides: "Every act, agreement, contract, or combination in the form of trust, or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce within this state, which is against public policy, is hereby declared to be illegal." Held, said section defines agreements and combinations in restraint of trade and makes the same illegal. Section 11018 to section 11031, inclusive, Comp. Stat. 1921, provide the remedies for the dissolution, prosecution, and punishment for the violation of any of the provisions of section 11017.

3. Corporation Commission--Regulation of Virtual Monopolies.

Section 13 of said act, section 11032, Comp. Stat. 1921, provides: "Whenever any business, by reason of its nature, extent, or the existence of a virtual monopoly therein, is such that the public must use the same, or its services, or the consideration by it given or taken or offered, or the commodities bought or sold therein are offered or taken by purchase or sale in such a manner as to make it of public consequence or to affect the community at large as to supply, demand or price or rate thereof, or said business is conducted in violation of the first section of this article, said business is a public business, and subject to be controlled by the state, by the Corporation Commission or by an action in any district court of the state, as to all of its practices, prices, rates and charges. And it is hereby declared to be the duty of any person, firm, or corporation engaged in any public business to render its services and offer its commodities, or either, upon reasonable terms without discrimination and adequately to the needs of the public, considering the facilities of said business." Held, said section vests the Corporation Commission with jurisdiction to regulate any public business which possesses the statutory characteristics, such as whenever any business, by reason of its nature, extent, or the existence of a virtual monopoly therein, is such that the public must use the same, etc., "or said business is conducted in violation of the first section of this article," and that the word "or," as herein last referred to, is used as a disjunctive, and that the word "and" should not be substituted therefor. Held, further, that the question as to whether a business possesses the characteristics mentioned is subject to regulation by the Corporation Commission, is a question of fact that must be determined from competent testimony on a proper application to regulate such business at a hearing on such application.

4. Same.--Regulation of Ice Business.

Whether or not the manufacture, sale, and distribution of ice within any city or community is conducted in such a way and to such an extent as to bring it within the statutory characteristics and subject it to regulation by the Corporation Commission is dependent upon the established facts in a proper hearing before the commission for the regulation of such business, and if upon such bearing the evidence shall disclose such a state of facts as would bring such business within the statute, the commission would have jurisdiction to regulate the rates in the distribution of ice.

Lydick & Hood and Irvin L. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

E. S. Ratliff, for Corporation Commission.

KENNAMER, J.

¶1 The Oklahoma Light & Power Company, a corporation, instituted this action in this court against the Corporation Commission for a writ of prohibition directed to said commission prohibiting it from exercising or assuming jurisdiction upon the application of George C. Crump, a citizen of Holdenville, to regulate the price of ice sold by said plaintiff in the city of Holdenville. The petition filed by Crump before the commission in substance alleged that the city of Holdenville has a population of approximately 5,000 people. That the Oklahoma Light & Power Company operates in said city a plant for the generation of electric current, which it sells, transmits, and distributes to the people generally throughout said city, and that in addition to manufacturing and distributing electric current said company manufactures artificial ice, sells and distributes the same to the people generally throughout said city. That said company is the only one manufacturing, selling, and distributing ice in the city of Holdenville, and that the rates and charges for said ice so sold and distributed are higher rates and charges than are necessary in order to give said company a reasonable rate of return on the value of its property used and useful in the operation of said ice business within said city. The complainant prayed for a hearing upon his petition, and that upon said hearing the commission, by proper order, fix the rates and charges to be charged by the Oklahoma Light & Power Company for ice sold and distributed in the city of Holdenville. The commission made an order setting said application for hearing on the 7th day of November, 1921. The plaintiff in its application for a writ of prohibition alleges that the commission is without jurisdiction under the act approved June 10, 1908, art. 1, chap. 83, Session Laws 1907 and 1908, page 750 (sections 11017 and 11032, Comp. Stat. 1921), to regulate the price of ice in the city of Holdenville. Counsel in support of the application for the writ contend that the act of the Legislature, supra, was intended only to regulate unlawful combinations in restraint of trade, and it was not intended to authorize the regulation of a business which happens to be without local competition, and that the title of the act is not broad enough to include a business not amounting to a voluntary and unlawful combination in restraint of trade, and that any provision in the act attempting to regulate a busi-ness not amounting to an illegal combination in restraint of trade is void. The title to the act in question is as follows:

"To define a trust, monopoly, unlawful combination in restraint of trade; to provide civil and criminal penalties and punishment for violation thereof and damages thereby caused; to regulate such trusts and monopolies; to promote free competition for all classes of business in the state; and declaring an emergency."

¶2 Sections 1 and 13 of the act provide:

1. "That every act, agreement, contract, or combination in the form of trust, or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce within this state, which is against public policy, is hereby declared to be illegal."

13. "Whenever any business, by reason of its nature, extent, or the existence of virtual monopoly therein, is such that the public must use the same, or its services, or the consideration by it given or taken or offered, or the commodities bought or sold therein are offered or taken by purchase or sale in such a manner as to make it of public consequence, or to affect the community at large as to supply, demand or price or rate thereof, or said business is conducted in violation of the first section of this article, said business is a public business, and subject to be controlled by the state, by the Corporation Commission or by an action in any district court of the state, as to all of its practices, prices, rates and charges. And it is hereby declared to be the duty of any person, firm or corporation engaged in any public business to render its services and offer its commodities, or either, upon reasonable terms without discrimination and adequately to the needs of the public, considering the facilities of said business."

¶3 Upon an examination of the title to this act and the provisions of section 13, we are unable to agree with the contention made by counsel for the plaintiff.

¶4 Section 57, article 5, of the Constitution, provides:

"Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title. * *"

¶5 This section of the Constitution is almost verbatim with section 45, article 4, of the Alabama Constitution, and the manifest intention of this mandatory provision is that the title of an act must be such as to fairly suggest and advise as to the subject intended to be covered by the act. All matters fairly and reasonably connected with the act must be indicated by the title. It was intended by this constitutional provision to forbid the Legislature from embracing in any one act two or more unconnected subjects. Anything in an act not germane to the general purpose expressed in the title brings such a statute within this constitutional prohibition. But it must be borne in mind that this provision of the Constitution only requires that the title of an act should express the subject, not the object of the act, and it is no valid objection to a statute that the title fails to plainly indicate the purpose to be accomplished by the act, but the subject must be clearly stated. Vol. 25, R. C. L., sec. 94, page 848; City of Pond Creek et el. v. Haskell, Governor, et al., 21 Okla. 711, 769; Falconer v. Robinson 46 Ala. 340; State ex rel. v. Rogers et al., 107 Ala. 444, 19 So. 909, 32 L. R. A 520.

¶6 The true rule appears to be that:

"It is a sufficient compliance

...