Sunset Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Medford

• Decision Date: 06 May 1902
• Docket Number: 2,714.
• Parties: SUNSET TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. CITY OF MEDFORD et at.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

115 F. 202

SUNSET TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. CITY OF MEDFORD et at.

No. 2,714.

United States Circuit Court, D. Oregon.

May 6, 1902

E. S Pillsbury and F. R. Strong, for complainant.

E. B Watson, for defendants.

BELLINGER District Judge.

This is a suit to enjoin the city of Medford from removing the poles and wires of the complainant from the streets of that city under an ordinance imposing a license upon the company of $100 per annum, and requiring it to sign an agreement not to charge its customers in Medford more than $1.50 per month for its service.

Section 102 of the act of the legislature incorporating the city of Medford provides that:

'The city council shall have power to license, regulate or prohibit telegraph and telephone companies using the roads, streets or alleys of the city and road district, and to fix the compensation which such companies shall annually pay to the city for such license or privilege. But no license shall grant an exclusive right to any such company.'

The ordinance complained of provides that no person shall engage in the telephone business, or place in or occupy any of the streets with its poles and wires, without paying, for an annual license so to do, the sum of $100, and, when this sum is paid, the city recorder shall issue a license to the person, authorizing and permitting said person or company to engage in the telephone business within said city for the period of one year; that the person or company paying said license fee, during the year for which they have paid such license, shall have a right to occupy the streets and alleys with his or its poles and wires, etc. This is a revenue provision, and is not within the authority conferred upon the city by its charter. 'The power to license, as a means of regulating a business, implies the power to charge a fee therefor sufficient to defray the expense of issuing the license, and to compensate the city for any expense incurred in maintaining such regulation. Whenever it is manifest that the fee for the license is substantially in excess of what it should be, it will be considered a tax, and the ordinance imposing it void. ' Laundry License Case (D.C.) 22 F 701. If the city has authority, under section 102 of the charter, to fix the compensation which shall be annually paid for such license or privilege to use the roads and streets of the city, then the city might have required the payment of the sum...