OCR Text |
Show itlRlS DISMISS POWER APPEALS , . UNITED STATES TRIBUNAL OF LAST RESORT REFUSES TO SET ASIDE UTILITY ORDERS Oaden-Portland Union-Portland and Utah-Idaho Central Raiiror.d Companies Lose In Action Ac-tion After Appeal Washington. Appeals of the Ogden Portland and the Union Portland Ce-mnt Ce-mnt companies and of the Utah-Idaho Central Railroad company to have aet eslde the orders of the public utilitlen commission of Utah, canceling their contracts with the Utah Power and Light company, were Monday dismissed dis-missed (mm the supreme court. Orders of the public utilities commission com-mission c-enceling the contracts of the companies above named, and wnic'h were Affirmed by the --supreme court of Utah, were three of the eighteen cases which were appealed from the decision of the commission to the supreme su-preme ourt of Utah. Originally there were seventy-three cases, known as the special contract cases, in which the Utah Copper company com-pany was one of the complainants, ond which made the fight ibefore the utilities commission. The case was bitterly bit-terly contested and after a prolonged hearing, which extended' over several weeks and in which the testimony presented pre-sented mode several volumes and a number of electrical experts from various va-rious parts of the country testified, the utilities commission held that it had the right to annul contracts made with the power company and to place them upon the same schedule as other oth-er consumers of power. The Union Portland Cement company com-pany and the Ogden Portland. Cement company end the Utah-Idaho Central Railroad company, together with the Utah Copper company and fourteen others, appealed from the order of the commission to the state supreme court, which tribunal upheld the lower court. From this decision the cement companies and the railroad company appealed to the United States supreme court. The case was presented in briefs to the court several weeks ago. The dismissal follows as stated in the dispatch from Washington. It was contended by the companies that their contracts for electric current cur-rent were protected toy the federal constitution and were made prior to the creation of the utilities commis-elon, commis-elon, and that the decision of the Utah supreme court sustaining orders of the commission cancelling the contracts con-tracts on the ground that ,they were preferential, should be reversed. The state asserted that the agreements were ordinary service contracts which properly were terminated so that all consumers could enjoy uniform ratej. |