COLLINS-DIETZ-MORRIS CO. v. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION.
1931 OK 301
7 P.2d 123
154 Okla. 121
http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...p?citeid=39729
The authority for regulation of traffic over the public highways is well recognized. It is unquestionably a part of the police power of the state. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. right to say what use shall be made of those highways and to prescribe reasonable restrictions on and conditions for their use. Where legislation imposes reasonable restrictions and conditions, it will not be disturbed by this court. The language of this court in Ex parte Tindall, 102 Okla. 192, 229 P. 125, is applicable herein. See, also, Ex parte Sales, 108 Okla. 29, 233 P. 186, Barbour v. Walker, 126 Okla. 227, 259 P. 552, and Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 61 L. Ed. 222, 37 S. Ct. 30. We cannot say that the imposition of a tax upon those who use the public highways for transportation of merchandise for "compensation" is an unreasonable condition imposed on such use. While the plaintiff is neither a public service company nor a transportation company within the meaning of section 18, article 9, of the Constitution, and while it is not subject to regulation as such, its right to the use of the public highways of the state is subject to reasonable regulation, and, by the provisions of the act, that regulatory power is placed in the Corporation Commission. In so far as the act is intended to operate as a regulation or restriction upon or a condition to the use of the highways, and those regulations, restrictions, and conditions are reasonable, it is not inoperative and void. We will look to the terms of the act to determine the reasonableness thereof.
15 While this court assumed jurisdiction in this matter on account of the public importance of the question presented and under the authority of section 846, C. O. S. 1921, it declines to determine whether or not the legislative act in question is constitutional as to persons who are not shown by the agreed case to be affected thereby, and the provisions of the legislative act which do not affect the plaintiff in this action will be construed no further than is necessary to determine the rights of the plaintiff in this action.
Ex parte TINDALL
1924 OK 669
229 P. 125
102 Okla. 192
http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...p?CiteID=45966
Now, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States contains three distinct guaranties or protective provisions, to wit:
1st. That no state shall pass any law abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.
2nd. No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
3rd. No state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction of equal protection under the laws.
24 In view of the proposition that it is petitioner's business which, in its character of a "public service enterprise," is seeking, herein to avoid the provisions of the act in question, and not the petitioner himself, in his individual capacity as a private citizen, as such, and in view of the proposition that the nature and character of petitioner's business is within the proper sphere of the "police power" of the state, we cannot sustain the contention that any of the three foregoing provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment are contravened or violated by any of the provisions of the act in question.
Bearing in mind that the business of petitioner is that of a "transportation company" for hire, and therefore a "public service enterprise" and subject to state control, keeping in mind, also, that the state may exercise control over the public highways, and that this is a business seeking to appropriate the public highways to its own use as a roadbed, seeking to charge the public a profit for a service to be rendered over the public highways, there is no merit in the contention that the state, within the sphere of its police power, cannot exercise a reasonable control over such business.
"It is laid down as a fundamental principle that persons or corporations engaged in occupations in which the public have an interest or use may be regulated by statute." 6 R. C. L., sec. 217, p. 224; Munn v. Ill. (U. S.) 24 L. Ed. 77; also 8 Cyc. 1070; 12 C. J. 1167-1172; Black's Const. Law (3rd Ed.) 97, 413, 397-394; 399. 403.
40 The gist of petitioner's contention on the above two grounds is that under the act a person desiring to engage in the transportation business over the public highways must, first, obtain a license to do so; and that the Corporation Commission is vested with power to grant or refuse such license, and that the power to grant a license to one, and refuse a license to another, is granting to the Corporation Commission an arbitrary power of granting an exclusive privilege and thereby creating a monopoly in violation of the two foregoing provisions of the state Constitution.
41 But this contention will not stand the test of fair analysis nor the weight of decisions.
"Since all rights are held subject to the police power of the state, when necessary the Legislature may prohibit absolutely the maintenance of any particular business if the public safety or the public morals require its discontinuance; and the hand of the Legislature cannot be stayed from providing for its discontinuance by any incidental inconvenience which individuals or corporations may suffer. * * *
"The test of the power is found in the effect the pursuit of the calling has upon the public weal rather than in the inherent nature of the calling itself." 6 R. C. L., sec. 214, p. 221-2.
42 This doctrine is so essential and so sound as to be properly applied to "private business enterprises" as well as to "public service enterprises." It applies to private business enterprises whenever such business affects the public welfare and essentially applies to public service concerns because of the right of the public to regulate a service for which the public must pay a fee and profit. To deny this right to the public would be to deny the public of that sacred right which petitioner has so strenuously argued on his own behalf, viz., that of "due process of law." To allow operators of motor vehicles to appropriate the public highways to their own free use, and to charge the public a fee and profit for the service to be rendered over same without license to do so and without regulation, would constitute a clear, concrete example of taking property without "due process of law."
43 Hence the contention is unsound and without merit.
Ex parte SALES
1924 OK 668
233 P. 186
108 Okla. 29
http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...p?CiteID=45965
The facts herein are identical with those in cause No. 14674, In re Application of Tindall for writ of habeas corpus, this day decided, 102 Okla. 192, 229 P. 125.
3 In this case as in the Tindall Case, supra, the petitioner makes no denial of having violated the statutes, and like Tindall, has not sought to avail himself of the privileges granted by the statute, but has assumed to conduct a business in open defiance of the statute. Each has assailed the validity of the statute upon the same grounds, except that petitioner herein contends, in addition to the grounds alleged by Tindall, that the statute is invalid because violative of section 1 and section 34, art. 9, section 33 and section 57, art. 5, section 33, art. 2 and section 7, art. 18, of the Constitution of Oklahoma.
4 As to the contention that the act is violative of section 1, art. 9 of the Constitution, we see no reasonable grounds, in fact, no grounds for such contention. Section 1 simply defines the terms "corporation," "company," "charter," and "license," as they are used in said article 9. There is nothing in the act in question that violates any of the definitions contained in said section 1, and the same may be said as to its violation of the definitions contained in section 34 of said article.
5 Said section 34 contains the following language:
"The term 'public service corporation' shall include all transportation and transmission companies, all gas, electric light, heat and power companies, and all persons authorized to exercise the right of eminent domain, or to use or occupy any right of way, street, alley, or public highway, whether along, over, or under the same, in a manner not permitted to the general public, the term 'person,' as used in this article, shall include individuals, partnerships and corporations, in the singular as well as plural number. * * *"
6 Hence it must be seen, as discussed in the Tindall Case, supra, that the nature and character of petitioner's business, and the nature and character of the business sought to be regulated by the act in question, come clearly within the specific definitions above. It is a 'transportation business" for hire and profit over the "public highways," and is therefore a "public service enterprise," within the foregoing definition.