Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/317

 290

THE GREEN BAG

LIMITATIONS UNDER WHICH A PUBLIC SERVICE COM PANY MUST CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT BUSINESS BY BRUCE WYMAX control the destinies of trade through their NEW conditions seem to us often to ownership of the public utilities should be create new laws, however much we permitted to concentrate in their own may' be told that nothing more is being hands the principal private businesses, done than the application of existing rules which they might not inconceivably do if to present circumstances. In the case of they were permitted to enter into general the public service companies the increase business and make use of their superior in their power has led to such development position to crush their competitors. The open recognition of this law limiting in the law for their regulation that it is the rights of one engaged in a public employ difficult to believe that this law is no more ment if he enters into competition with than a necessary deduction from established members of the public in various businesses principles. We have been so used to the in which his services are requisite, consti many liberties permitted those who carry tutes the latest development in this rapid on a private business, that it has not been growth of the law governing public calling. seen how fundamentally different are the The question has as yet come before the limitations upon public calling. Those who courts for adjudication only a few times; conduct a private business may adopt such but even the most conservative courts recog policies as will produce the greatest profits; nize the necessity of regulation here, while but those who profess a public employment the radical courts are willing in certain in must not do anything inconsistent with their stances to go to the extent of prohibition public duty. This difference is seen in the very statement of the modern problem which is proposed for discussion in the title II of this article — The Limitations under Where a public service company is also which a Public Service Company must engaged in another collateral business the Conduct an Independent Business. temptation always is to use the power in its For surely those who are engaged in public business to promote its collateral private business may conduct another busi ness if they please; and plainly they may put business. An illustration of this was shown in force policies to foster that business, many in the case of Louisville Transfer Company of which it is certain a person carrying on a v. American District Telegraph Company public business may not employ, if indeed (I Ky. L. J. 144). Plaintiff, in that case he will be allowed to carry on such a col was a transfer company providing omni lateral business at all. And this last doubt buses and other carriages. Defendant was arises because it is. feared by many people, a telephone company, which also conducted who are examining into the dangers affect a carriage and coupe service. To promote ing modern commerce from these new con that business it refused to -give full tele ditions, that unless those in common calling phone service to the plaintiff, so that people are held to the strictest accountability in might not call the plaintiff and order car the performance of their public duties the riages. That a public service company may competitive system with its market open to not thus protect a separate business carried on by it by refusing to its rival in that busi all is in the gravest peril. And the situa tion would become intolerable if those who ness the service that it offers the community