quirements enforced.1162 The condition may be general and apply to all the streets or those within certain restricted limits which limits may be enlarged from time to time.1163 There is authority to the effect that where the state has granted a license to use public highways for these purposes without this condition, that a subordinate municipal corporation cannot by ordinance unreasonably compel the placing of wires underground.1164 A proper exercise of the police power it would seem would necessarily include the right of subordinate public corporations to protect the lives and property of their citizens irrespective of implied limitations existing in a license granted by the state. 1162 United States Elec. Lighting Co. v. Ross, 24 Wash. Law Rep. 775. New York Laws 1884, c. 534; 1885, c. 499; 1887, c. 716. 1163 United States Elec. Light Co. v. Ross, 24 Wash. Law Rep. 775. 1164 Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 81 Minn. 140, 53 L. R. A. 175, on reargument, 150. The court in this case held that where, under the state law, telephone companies were given a right to erect poles and wires upon the public roads and highways, this included urban streets as well as rural roads and that the city of Minneapolis had no authority to arbitrarily order a removal of poles and wires from the surface, but could only compei telephone companies to put their wires in underground conduits when reason, convenience or good government of the municipality required. In construing an ordinance granting a license to the telephone company, the court said: "An ordinance of a municipality, surrendering a part of its powers to a corporation to secure and encourage works of improvement, which require the outlay of money and labor, to subserve the public interests of its citizens, when accepted and acted upon, becomes a contract between the city and the corporation which relied upon it, and the grantee cannot be arbitrarily deprived of the rights thus secured. It is protected by the organic law which orbids the impairment of contracts or interference with vested rights without due process of law." In discussing the right of the city to enact ordinances the court said on pages 149: "We do not intend, in the disposition of this case, to abridge the wholesome right of municipal government to regulate their internal and domestic affairs within the limits essential to the welfare of their citizens. A city has the right to enact reasonable ordinances, and to enforce them; but it is the conservator, not the autocrat, of the police power. It may originate the exercise of its useful authority, and apply it by specific and valid regulations; but that exercise is not despotic, nor absolute, but is open to review, and an ordinance that upon its face is unreasonable and arbitrary is subject to judicial examination. When it is not bounded by a fair and wise administration of municipal authority, but is unreasonable and arbitrary, it will be declared void, and 915. Rates for service rendered or commodities furnished. The right of the licensee to fix the rates at which its commodities or services may be supplied and furnished may be limited by conditions in the license, grant or statutes.1165 Or again, by the municipality restrained from its enforcement." 1165 Osborne v. San Diego Land & Town Co., 178 U. S. 22, affirming 76 Fed. 319, construing Cal. Act 1885, p. 95, § 5, giving the supervisors the power to fix water rates. Freeport Water Co. v. City of Freeport, 180 U. S. 587, affirming 186 Ill. 179, 57 N. E. 862; Danville Water Co. v. City of Danville, 180 U. S. 619, affirming 186 Ill. 326, 57 N. E. 1129. Santa Ana Water Co. v. Town of San Buenaventura, 56 Fed. 339. A condition in respect to fixing rates applying to a water company has no application to individuals engaged in the same business and this exemption will apply to a corporation organized to succeed them. Manhattan Trust Co. v. City of Dayton, 59 Fed. 327. A provision for a maximum price is not a contract for any period but an exercise of the municipal power to regulate and a limitation on the license granted. Cleveland City R. Co. v. City of Cleveland, 94 Fed. 385; Peoples' Gaslight & Coke Co. v. City of Chicago, 114 Fed. 384; Crosby v. City Council of Montgomery, 108 Ala. 498, 18 So. 723. An ordinance establishing water rates for domestic purposes is void for uncertainty in failing to designate what constitutes a domestic purpose. McFadden v. County of Los Angeles, 74 Cal. 571, 16 Pac. 397. Public authorities have no power to fix the water rate for a corporation organ ized to furnish water to the stockholders only. Leadville Water Co. v. City of Leadville, 22 Colo. 297, 45 Pac. 362; Trustees of Illinois Cent. Hospital for Insane v. City of Jacksonville, 61 Ill. App. 199. Under Hurd's Rev. St. c. 24, secs. 254, 7, a city is not authorized to bind itself by contract to furnish water for a period of years at a fixed rate. Decatur Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. City of Decatur, 120 Ill. 67, 11 N. E. 406, afg. 24 Ill. App. 544. Forman v. New Orleans & C. R. Co., 40 La. Ann. 446, 4 So. 246; Wabaska Elec. Co. v. City of Wymore, 60 Neb. 199, 82 N. W. 626. In the absence of such a charter right a city of the second class has no authority to regulate the rates and charges of an electric light com pany. Brush Elec. Ill. Co. v. Consolidated Tel. & Electrical Subway Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 81. The board of electrical control have power to determine the reasonableness of rents for use of an electrical subway. State v. Cincinnati Gaslight & Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262; City of Allegheny v. Millville, E. & S. St. R. Co., 159 Pa. 411, 28 Atl. 202; Cleburne Water, Ice & Lighting Co. v. Cleburne, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 141, 35 S. W. 733; Tacoma Gas & Elec. Co. v. City of Tacoma, 14 Wash. 288, 44 Pac. 655. Act 1890, enables cities to adopt charters authorizing them to provide light by maintaining plants and to regulate and control the use thereof but the universal rule which prevails that in the absence of express restrictions, rates charged must be reasonable.1166 This latter principle is based upon the idea that persons or corporations carrying on the business of furnishing light, water, power or transportation are to be regarded as engaged in a quasi public business since the commodities they furnish are either necessary or convenient to the public convenience, health or welfare.1167 under this condition do not have the power to regulate the price to be charged for light by private companies under franchises granted them. Linden Land Co. v. Milwaukee Elec. R. & Light Co., 107 Wis. 493, 83 N. W. 851. 1166 Santa Ana Water Co. v. Town of San Buenaventura, 56 Fed. 339; Cleveland Gaslight & Coke Co. v. City of Cleveland, 71 Fed. 610; Capital City Gaslight Co. v. City of Des Moines, 72 Fed. 829; City of Mobile v. Bienville Water Supply Co., 130 Ala. 379, 30 So. 445; Redlands, L. & C. Domestic Water Co. v. City of Redlands, 121 Cal. 312, 53 Pac. 791. Construing items for basis of reasonable charges. San Diego Water Co. v. City of San Diego, 118 Cal. 556, 50 Pac. 633, 38 L. R. A. 460. A private corporation supplying water can. not be denied the privilege of being heard pending an investigation to the reasonableness of its charges by a city council. City of Rushville v. Rushville Natural Gas Co. (Ind.) 28 N. E. 853; Robria v. New Orleans & C. R. Co., 45 La. Ann. 1368, 14 So. 214; In re Janvrin, 174 Mass. 514, 55 N. E. 381, 47 L. R. A. 319. The power may be delegated to a court to determine the reasonableness of water rates. Goebel V. Grosse Pointe Waterworks, 126 Mich. 307, 85 N. W. 744. Rates considered and held reasonable. Cline v. City of Springfield, 7 Ohio N. P. 626. As incident to the right of municipal corporations to regulate the price of gas, a city has authority to require gas companies to furnish annually such data and necessary information exclusively in their possession as will enable it to fix the price intelligently. Brymer v. Butler Water Co., 179 Pa. 331, 36 Atl. 249. A system of water rates that yields no more income than is required to maintain the plant, to pay fixed charges and operating expenses, to provide a suitable sinking fund for payment of debts and pay a fair profit to the stockholders on their investment, is not unreasonable. City of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co., 107 Tenn. 647, 64 S. W. 1075, 61 L. R. A. 888. 1167 Rogers Park Water Co. v. Fergus, 180 U. S. 624, affirming 178 Ill. 571, 53 N. E. 363; Gray v. Western Union Tel. Co., 87 Ga. 350, 14 L. R. A. 95; People's Gas Light & Co. v. Hale, 94 Ill. App. 406; Central Union Tel. Co. v. Swoveland, 14 Ind. App. 341, 42 N. E. 1035; Indiana Natural & Illuminating Gas Co. v. Anthony, 26 Ind. App. 307, 58 N. E. 868; True v. International Tel. Co., 60 Me. 9; Kennebec Water Dist. v. Waterville, 97 Me. 185, 54 Atl. 6; Ellis v. American Tel. Co., 95 Mass. (13 Allen) 226; American Water Works Co. Y.. State, 46 Neb. 194, 64 N. W. 711, The state or its subordinate agencies under these conditions retains the right to limit charges to those which are reasonable considering all of the circumstances under which they are supplied,1168 and to prevent discrimination.1169 When a contract establishes the rates which may be charged, this provision creates an obligation which cannot be destroyed or impaired by attempts 30 L. R. A. 447; Griffin v. Goldsborro Water Co., 122 N. C. 206, 30 S. E. 319, 41 L. R. A. 240; Passmore v. Western Union Tel. Co., 78 Pa. 242. Diego Land S. 22; San 1168 Osborne v. San & Town Co., 178 U. Diego Land & Town Co. v. National City, 74 Fed. 79; People's Gaslight & Coke Co. v. City of Chicago, 114 Fed. 384; Crosby v. City Council of Montgomery, 108 Ala. 498, 18 So. 723; Spring Valley Water Works Co. v. City of San Francisco, 82 Cal. 286, 22 Pac. 910, 1046, 6 L. R. A. 756; Creston Waterworks Co. v. City of Creston, 101 Iowa, 687, 70 N. W. 739; Hall v. City of Cedar Rapids, 115 Iowa, 199, 88 N. W. 448; Rockland Water Co. v. Adams, 84 Me. 472, 24 Atl. 840; In re Janvrin, 174 Mass. 514, 55 N. E. 381, 47 L. R. A. 319. That section of the water supply company, Statutes 1895, c. 488, is not unconstitutional as requiring the courts to exercise legislative functions because it provides for the determination of a reasonable water rate by certain designated judges. City of St. Louis v. Arnot, 94 Mo. 275, 7 S. W. 15. Evidence of the cost of waterworks as a basis of water rates is irrelevant. Haverhill Aqueduct Co. v. Page, 52 N. H. 472; Brymer v. Butler Water Co., 179 Pa. 331, 36 Atl. 249. A court under Pennsylvania Act April 29th, 1874, has no jurisdiction to prepare a general tariff of water rates where a charge of unreasonableness is made. City of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co., 107 Tenn. 647, 61 L. R. A. 888, affirmed 189 U. S. 434. Power to regulate rates by a municipal corporation must be expressly given. But see City of Noblesville v. Noblesville Gas & Improvement Co., 157 Ind. 162, 60 N. E. 1032. 1169 Lanning v. Osborne, 76 Fed. 319; City of Mobile v. Bienville Water Supply Co., 130 Ala. 379, 30 So. 445; Wagner v. City of Rock Island, 146 Ill. 139, 34 N. E. 545, 21 L. R. A. 519. But rates based on the requirements of different consumers will not be regarded as discrimination. See, also, on this point, the following cases: Sheward v. Citizens' Water Co., 90 Cal. 635, 27 Pac. 439; Silkman v. Yonkers Water Com'rs, 152 N. Y. 327, 46 N. E. 612, 37 L. R. A. 827; Exchange Bldg. Co. v. Roanoke Gas & Water Co., 90 Va. 83, 17 S. E. 789; and State v. Gosnell, 116 Wis. 606, 93 N. W. 542, 61 L. R. A. 33. Richmond Natural Gas Co. V. Clawson, 155 Ind. 659, 58 N. E. 1049, 51 L. R. A. 744; Meridian Waterworks Co. v. Schuinerr (Miss.) 17 So. 167; St. Louis Brewing Ass'n v. City of St. Louis, 140 Mo. 419, 37 S. W. 525, 41 S. W. 911; Passmore v. Western Union Tel. Co., 78 Pa. 242; Exchange & Bldg. Co. v. Roanoke Gas & Water Co., 90 Va. 83, 17 S. E. 789. Facts considered and held not discriminating. to reduce the rates thus fixed during the term of the license or contract.1 1170 § 916. The right to change rates. It must not be forgotten, however, that the rendition of a service whether that of transportation or the supplying of some commodity is property within the meaning of constitutional provisions relative to the taking of property without due process of law or without the payment, when it is private, as in the case noted for a public use, of full and ample compensation.111 The rule, therefore, is well established that rates, though the right to change them exist,1172 cannot be fixed so low as to effect a taking of property under any of the constitutional provisions mentioned; 1173 neither can a contract provision fixing rates be 1170 Santa Ana Water Co. V. Town of San Buenaventura, 56 Fed. 339. See, also, authorities cited in the following section. Los Angeles City Water Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 88 Fed. 720; Agua Pura Co. v. City of Las Vegas, 10 N. M. 6, 60 Pac. 208; City of Ashland v. Wheeler, 88 Wis. 607, 60 N. W. 818. 1171 San Diego Land & Town Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 739, affirming 74 Fed. 79; Central Trust Co. v. Citizen's St. R. Co., 80 Fed. 218. Act reducing street railway fares held unconstitutional as special legislation. 1172 Freeport Water Co. v. City of Freeport, 180 U. S. 587, affirming 186 Ill. 179, 57 N. E. 862; Rogers Park Water Co. v. Fergus, 180 U. S. 624; Danville Water Co. v. City of Danville, 180 U. S. 619, 21 Sup. Ct. 505, affirming 186 Ill. 326, 57 N. E. 1129. 1173 San Diego Land & Town Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 739, affirming 74 Fed. 79; City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles City Water Co., 177 U. S. 558, affirming 88 Fed. 720; San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 89 Fed. 274. The actual present value of the property of the water company and not its cost is to be taken as a basis in ascertaining a reasonable rate to be charged by it for water. Such a basis should provide for the depreciation of the plant for profit to the owners. San Joaquin & K. R. Canal & Irr. Co. v. Stanislaus County, 90 Fed. 516; Spring Valley Water Works Co. v. City of San Francisco, 82 Cal. 286, 22 Pac. 910, 1046, 6 L. R. 756; San Diego Water Co. v. City of San Diego, 118 Cal. 556, 50 Pac. 663, 38 L. R. A. 460; People's Gas Lignt & Coke Co. v. Hale, 94 Ill. App. 406; City of Des Moines v. Des Moines Waterworks Co., 95 Iowa, 348, 64 N. W. 269; Goebel v. Grosse Pointe Waterworks Co., 126 Mich. 307, 85 N. W. 744; State v. Cincinnati Gaslight & Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262. "The intention of the legislature in empowering city councils to regulate the price of gas, was to limit incorporated gas companies to fair and reasonable prices |