Show SUPREME COURT I HEARS ARGUMENT I IN POWER CASES Takes Under Advisement Petition to Enjoin Public Utilities Commission Whether or not the tho temporary alternative alternative alter alter- native writ of oC prohibition Issued b by the supreme a against tho the public c utilities tics ties commission n to prohibit It Il from interfering In- In with contracts made b by the Utah Power 1 Light I ht company with tho thol I Portland Cement and 1 l company an ho Ogden den Portland Cement company the last two of oC O Ogden den shall shaH bo be made mado permanent was argued In tho supreme yesterday court and the question tak taken n I under Advisement t I The yot of ot the case shows that th I the Union Portland Cement company the tho Utah Power company complO on Xo- Xo o- o 23 3 3 In 1912 entered Into a n contract con con- tract whereby the power company was wag to furnish electrical energy y to tho time ce cement cc- cc mont ment company Tho The cem cement nt company was to pay for tor thiM not less lesH than 2000 a n month Up to the tho present the time cement company compan has paid the power company about a year for lor power I i Dismantled Tho The content company aCt r the ct contract contract con con- 1 tract t WitS made maile dismantled Its power plant and It maintains that It could rould not Hot be rebuilt for tor less than SOO I Similar con conditions exist between the tho Ogden Og Portland Cement company and the power company except that the company compan was to use not less than 1500 worth of or power a n. year I This contract was as dated March 18 18 1911 Both contracts were to run ten years cars On September r 27 j 1919 the public I mimics commission lon issued an order to tho the two companies and seventy five others who held contracts with tho the power company comp to appear before tho the commission November No 11 to justify the tho continuance of or such special contracts which tho the commission held were cre discriminatory dis and anti and should be set aside Prior to tho hearing or taking of or evidence o the cement company flied filed a n demurrer objecting to the Jurisdiction of the commission which was overruled o January 20 19 1920 O. O On February 13 i. i the supreme court was asked for tor an nn alternative writ of oC prohibition and yesterday was fixed Q ul the time for or the utilities commission to Lo show cause wh why the alternative o writ should not be made permanent Tho Time commission was as represented b by Dan B. B Shields s. s attorney general and b by Herbert Her Her- bert Van Darn Dam m. m n assistant attorney Ken gen vi cIal LIL ni mo TUC cement companies were represented represented rep rep- I resented b by C. C R. R worth Hollingsworth H. H H. H Henderson and Wade M. M Johnson M Contention The stats state contended that prohibition docs does not Ho lie In this Instance claiming that tho public utilities commission I M is an arm of ot the legislature that t the hc court cannot Issue prohibition In un net action Ion upon tho the part of oC a le legislative branch and cannot restrain the com corn I ml The Tho cement companies maintain that a contract having ha been made the commission com corn I mission cannot break brenk It nor abrogate It It and It Il has no Jurisdiction In thu the case Judge Jude John F. F MacLane nc of or the power W. W y W. W company compan Ray flay representing representing- several several sev sew eral mining companies and R. R G G. Lucas ot of the Utah Copper company compan appeared as amicus curiae and were given In n permission per per- mission to file briefs In tho the case |