Tampa Water Works Co. v. Tampa
26 S. Ct. 23, 199 U.S. 241, 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1026 (1905)
Rule of Law:
A state constitutional provision granting the legislature "full power" to correct abuses and prevent excessive charges by public service corporations renders future contracts made for such services subject to the exercise of that power, thus precluding a claim of contract impairment under the U.S. Constitution when the legislature later acts to regulate rates.
Facts:
- The Tampa Waterworks Company and the City of Tampa entered into a contract for the water company to erect water works and have the right to charge specific rates for water use for thirty years.
- At the time the contract was made, Section 30, Article XVI of the Florida state constitution was in force, investing the legislature with "full power to pass laws for the correction of abuses and to prevent unjust discrimination and excessive charges by persons and corporations engaged as common carriers...or performing other services of a public nature."
- Subsequently, the Florida legislature passed an act (approved May 31, 1901, Chapter 5070) empowering corporate authorities of cities to prescribe by ordinance maximum reasonable charges for water, with a proviso that the act should not impair the validity of any valid contract previously entered into.
- The City of Tampa passed a subsequent ordinance fixing lower maximum rates as the highest to be charged by any person or corporation furnishing water to the city or its inhabitants.
- The new city ordinance imposed a penalty on violation of its terms or refusal to furnish water in compliance with the new, lower rates.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff water company filed a bill against the City of Tampa, alleging the new ordinance impaired its contract and took property without due process.
- The city demurred to the plaintiff's bill.
- A state trial court dismissed the plaintiff's bill upon demurrer.
- The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the dismissal, holding the city's justification (the state constitution and subsequent legislative act) sufficient.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city ordinance establishing lower maximum water rates, enacted pursuant to a state constitutional provision granting the legislature "full power" to prevent excessive charges by public service corporations, unconstitutionally impair the obligation of a prior contract between the city and a water company setting higher rates, even if the contract predates the specific legislative act but postdates the constitutional provision?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes
No, the city ordinance does not unconstitutionally impair the obligation of the prior contract because the contract was made subject to the existing state constitutional provision that invested the legislature with full power to prevent excessive charges by public service corporations. The Court assumed, for purposes of decision, that the contract was within the city's powers, but inherently qualified by the state constitution. The "full power" clause in the Florida constitution meant that the legislature's power to regulate existed as soon as the constitution went into effect. Therefore, any contracts made afterward were subject to the possibility of this power being exercised, as it later was through the 1901 legislative act empowering cities to set reasonable maxima. The Court noted that water companies perform public services, falling within the constitutional clause's scope, and that the adjective "full" and the word "shall" regarding enforcement suggest an inalienable duty. The Court leaned towards agreeing with the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of its own laws, as the interpretation was deemed a "possible one" and the question was balanced with doubt. Without an allegation that the new rates were unreasonable or destructive of property value, the case rested solely on the contract impairment claim, which failed due to the pre-existing constitutional reservation of power.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brown
Yes, the city ordinance does unconstitutionally impair the obligation of the prior contract because the legislature, in delegating power to cities to fix rates, explicitly limited that power by stipulating it should not impair the validity of valid contracts. Justice Brown argued that the state constitutional provision, while granting full power to the legislature, was not self-executing. When the legislature subsequently passed the act empowering cities to fix rates, it expressly included a proviso that the act should not be construed to impair the validity of any valid contract. The legislature had the right to parcel out its power selectively, and it was not bound to exercise its full constitutional power. Therefore, if the original contract between the Waterworks Company and the city was valid (which the Florida Supreme Court assumed), the city council of Tampa exceeded its delegated authority under the legislative act by reducing rates protected by that contract. This action, in the dissent's view, directly impaired the obligation of the contract, contrary to the limitations set by the legislature.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent regarding the interplay between state constitutional powers, legislative delegation, and contract impairment claims. It reinforces the idea that contracts with municipalities, especially for public services, are inherently entered into subject to existing state constitutional reservations of power. The ruling highlights the federal courts' deference to state supreme courts' interpretations of their own state constitutions and statutes, particularly when such interpretations are considered reasonable. This principle limits a municipality's ability to bind itself indefinitely through contracts concerning essential public services, affirming the state's paramount police power to regulate for public welfare, even if it affects pre-existing agreements.
