was limited to the right to operate street railways by horse or pneumatic power, and that when the ordinance of September 20, 1890, was passed conditions were entirely changed, and a new and different mode of operation was substituted, and rights existing under the original ordinance were terminated and abandoned.

Let us see if the ordinance of 1875 was limited to the use of animal or pneumatic power. Section IV of that ordinance provides:

"SEC. IV. The cars to be used upon such tracks shall be propelled with either animal or pneumatic power, as the said company deem advisable, provided that no propelling power or machinery of any sort shall be used after it shall prove to be a public nuisance, and said company may connect with any other railway upon which power is used similar to that authorized to be used on street railways by the city council; but no locomotive, freight or passenger car, such as are usually run over the general railways of this State for the transportation of freight and passengers, shall be used upon any of said tracks, unless authorized by the city council; provided, that the said Minneapolis Street Railway Company, and any other street railway company which the council may charter under section 3 of this ordinance, shall each allow the other to connect with and jointly use such portions of the track belonging to each as the convenience of the traveling public may require, upon such equitable terms as may be agreed upon by the said companies, or as may be determined by the District Court of Hennepin County."

There can be no doubt that, in the then state of the art, the use of electric power as the means of operating the cars of the company was not specifically in contemplation. While pneumatic power is also suggested, there does not seem to be any means of operation by that method. That the use of other motive power might be developed in the progress of street railway operation, we think, was clearly indicated in the ordinance itself. For while animal or pneumatic power is

named, it is provided that no propelling power shall be used after it shall be proved a public nuisance, and that the company might connect with other street railroads upon which power is used similar to that authorized to be used by street railways by the city council, but steam power cars, such as are in common use, should not be used upon the city tracks, unless so authorized by the city council.

In these terms of the ordinance it is evident that the parties had in mind that other propelling power might be developed, and it was the purpose of the city council to keep control of its use so as to prevent it from becoming a public nuisance in the streets. There was no positive limitation to animal power and the possible progress and improvement in the means of propelling cars, contemplated by the parties, was carried into effect when the city passed, and the company accepted, the ordinance of September 19, 1890. By that ordinance the railway company was authorized to operate all its existing lines, and all its lines to be thereafter constructed in the city, by electricity as the motive power.

Section VIII of that ordinance provides:

"SEC. VIII. In the construction, maintenance and operation of said lines of street railway, said Minneapolis Street Railway Company, its successors and assigns, shall at all times be subject to all the conditions and limitations and other provisions of an ordinance entitled 'An ordinance authorizing and regulating street railways in the city of Minneapolis,' passed July 9, 1875, and approved July 17, 1875, as the same has been amended and is now in force, and all other ordinances of said city now in force or hereafter adopted, so far as applicable."

It is the contention of the city that by the terms of this ordinance the street railway company became subject to regulation by the ordinances of the city then in force, or thereafter adopted, including the right to regulate and control the amount to be charged for fares for the transportation of passengers.

VOL. CCXV-28

In construing this section we must bear in mind that the company then had, as we have heretofore said, a contract upon the subject of fares, which limited the city in its right to regulate the same to a reduction not below five cents per passenger upon any one, continuous line. It needs no argument to demonstrate that the right to charge passenger fares is of the very essence of the contract, essential to the operation and success of the enterprise. Detroit v. Detroit Citizens'

Street Railway Co., 184 U. S. 368, 384.

In section VI of the ordinance of September 19, 1890, it is provided:

"SEC. VI. Passenger cars on all said lines shall run between extreme limits on all extensions to or near the intersection of Washington avenue with Hennepin avenue, without change to passengers traveling thereon, and after November 1, 1890, said street railway company shall issue transfer checks at the junction of said lines at Washington and Hennepin avenues, to any passenger on any of said lines, who shall pay one full fare, which transfer check shall entitle passenger so receiving the same to a continuous passage on either of said connecting lines; provided, that no passenger shall be entitled to more than one transfer check for one fare; and provided further, that said transfer check shall be used only by the person receiving the same for a continuous passage, and shall be used on the next car departing on the connecting line upon which it is to be used. And, if any of the lines of said railway do not connect at said Washington and Hennepin avenues, transfer checks shall be given at the point nearest to the crossing of Washington and Hennepin avenues, where such lines do connect with a line reaching said junction point at Washington and Hennepin avenues.”

This is the only section which mentions the subject of fares, and it is therein provided that transfer checks may be issued at certain points to persons paying "one full fare," the transfer check to be used only by the person receiving the same, for one continuous passage.

The rate of fare had been fixed in the ordinance of July 9, 1875, and if it was intended to change it it would seem clear that the parties would have entered into new negotiations concerning it, and would have adopted, if that was desirable, some definite measure concerning it. The ordinance of July 9, 1875, was not attempted to be repealed, and is referred to in section VIII of the ordinance of September 19, 1890, "as the same as has been amended, and as now in force," and adopted, "so far as applicable," concerning the things mentioned in section VIII.

It is true that by the ordinance of July 9, 1875, there was no right to reduce the passenger fare below five cents over any one continuous line not more than three miles in length, to be designated by the city council. By the terms of the ordinance of September 19, 1890, transfers were to be allowed, so that, for one full fare, a passenger might receive a continuous trip very considerably exceeding three miles in length -it is stated in one of the briefs to include a trip of eleven miles. But we do not understand that the acceptance of this regulation had the effect to abrogate the contract as to the right to charge a fare of five cents over one continuous line, that is, for one continuous passage. Acquiescence in a regulation which may not have been deemed injurious, and may have been deemed wise and expedient, does not preclude a contest against the enforcement of regulations which are injurious and violative of contract rights. Los Angeles v. Los Angeles City Water Co., 177 U. S. 558, 579.

The right to future control under section VIII was to include the "construction, maintenance, and operation" of the lines of the street railway company. Did this undertaking have the effect to abrogate the contract right already existing, and to subject the company for the future as to the right to charge fares, to the discretion of the city council? Or, do the terms "construction, maintenance, and operation" have reference to the manner of carrying on the business of the road, the laying of its tracks, the use of the streets, the keeping up of

the equipment, the safety of the passengers and the public, and similar matters not involving the right to charge fares? We think these terms refer to the latter class of rights and privileges. Such is the import of the words used, and the subject of rates of fare is not mentioned. The case already referred to, Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' Rwy. Co., 184 U. S. 368, is an instructive one upon this point. In that case it was held that a street railway company having a valid contract, giving it the right to charge five cents for the transportation of each passenger, did not lose that right by accepting the terms of an ordinance reserving the right to make such further rules, orders and regulations as to the city council may seem proper. Wilson v. Standefer, 184 U. S. 399.

We therefore reach the conclusion that when the ordinance complained of, that of February 9, 1907, was enacted by the city council, the company was the owner of a valuable contract right secured to it by the ordinance of July, 1875, ratified by the enactment of the legislature of the State of Minnesota on March 4, 1879, which secured to the company for fifty years from July 1, 1873, the contract right to charge five cents per passenger for one continuous trip. We think that the requirement of the ordinance, that the company should operate its roads by the sale of tickets six for a quarter, as required by the ordinance of February 9, 1907, was an enactment by legislative authority which impaired the obligation of the contract thus held and owned by the complainant company. We therefore reach the conclusion that the decree of the Circuit Court enjoining the execution of the ordinance, for the reasons stated, should be affirmed.

An examination of the decree, however, shows that it goes beyond the necessitics of the case in specifically decreeing that the complainant company is a corporation organized under Title I of chapter 34 of the Statutes of Minnesota for the year 1866, with charter rights as alleged in the amended. bill. It also decrees that the contract under the ordinances of July 9, 1875, and July 18, 1878, as ratified by the act of