upr000286 149

5 In reversing the order, the court pointed out that such an order must be "reasonable” before it is valid. In discussing the tests of "reasonableness", the court said: "In this connection the commission and court must bear in mind the provisions of our state Consti­tution that no person shall be deprived of his prop­erty without due process of law, and that private property may not be taken for public use until a just compensation shall be paid therefor, as well as the similar provisions in the federal Constitution. Sec­tions 13 and 14, art. 1, Idaho Constitution. To com­pel the proprietor of a utility to make enlargements or extensions under such circumstances that he could not make a fair return upon his whole investment would certainly be depriving him of his property without due process of law. In order to justify the commission in ordering enlargements, the commission should be sa­tisfied from the evidence: First, that the existing plant is not reasonably sufficient to render adequate service (Washington ex rel. 0. R. & N. Co. v Fairchild, 2?4 U. S. 510, 32 Sup. Ct. 535, 56 L. Ed. £63); second, that the extension or enlargement is within the scope of the original professed undertaking of the proprietor of the utility (N. P. R. Co. v. N. Dak., 236 G. S. 5$5, 35 Sup. Ct. 429, at page 433, 59 L. Ed. ___ ); third, that after the making of the enlargements or extensions the owner will be insured a fair return upon his whole investment (Smyth v. Ames, 169 G. S. 466-546, IS Sup. Ct. 41&, 42 L. Ed. £19); fourth, that the particular enlargements or extensions are reasonably necessary to insure reasonably adequate service (N. P. R. Co. v. N. Dak., supra, and Washington ex rel. 0. R. & N. Co. v. Fairchild, supra)." / V / w. M s Jy.y SjSccbhall