But, whether superseded or not, the fare provisions of Contracts Nos. 1 and 2 were subject to the later exercise by the State of New York of its police power to regulate them. City of New York v. Campbell, 277 U.S. 573 (involving a contract with the City of New York); Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182; Englewood v. Denver S.P.R. Co., 248 U.S. 294; Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161; People v. Budd, 117 N.Y. 1; People ex rel. N.Y. Electric Lines v. Squire, 107 N.Y. 593; People ex rel. Bridge Operating Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 153 A.D. 129 . The State of New York did exercise its police power in 1907 by its delegation to the Public Service Commission thereby created of the power to regulate substantially all public utility rates.

And, indeed, the necessity for this conclusion becomes doubly manifest when it is borne in mind that the right here asserted to contract in derogation of the state law and of the rule of public policy announced by the court of last resort of the State is urged by municipal corporations whose every power depends upon the state law. Covington v. Kentucky, 173 U.S. 231, 241; Worcester v. Worcester Consolidated Street Ry. Co., 196 U.S. 539, 548; Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U.S. 192; Englewood v. Denver South Platte Ry. Co., 248 U.S. 294, 296; Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil Gas Co., 250 U.S. 394, 399. Decrees reversed and causes remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

The principles announced and applied in these cases have been reiterated and enforced so often that the matter is no longer debatable. Covington v. Kentucky, 173 U.S. 231, 241; Worcester v. Worcester Street Ry. Co., 196 U.S. 539, 548; Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U.S. 192; Englewood v. Denver South Platte Ry. Co., 248 U.S. 294, 296. Writ of error dismissed.

And on appeal to the circuit court, that tribunal has the power to review the findings and actions of the Commission, affirm, reverse, amend or change them, and from this action an appeal may be taken to this Court, where the actions, findings and proceedings of both the Commission and the trial judge may be reviewed, affirmed, altered, remanded and changed, and from which action, where a Federal question is involved, appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States for such review by that Court. From this it is seen, we think, that the remedy of appellant, thus set out, is adequate and complete. The following cases, at least in principle, sustain that conclusion: City of Englewood v. Denver South Platte Railway Company, 62 Colo. 229, 161 P. 151, Writ of Error dismissed, 63 L.Ed. 253; Hoyne v. Chicago O.P. Elevated R. Company, 294 Ill. 412, 128 N.E. 587; South Bay Motor Freight Company v. Schaaf, 3 Wn.2d 466, 101 P.2d 584; West New York v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, (N.J.) 148 A. 402; Swain v. Oklahoma R. Company, 168 Okla. 133, 32 P.2d 251. In the Hoyne case the ground for injunction was based upon the proposition that the order of the Commission fixing rates was void.

Rep. 236; Southern Utilities Co. v. City of Palatka, Fla., ___ U.S. ___, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; City of Opelika v. Opelika Sewer Co. 265 U.S. 215, ___ Sup. Ct. Rep. ___; Ortega Co. v. Triay, 260 U.S. 103; Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Public Service Corporation, 248 U.S. 372, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 117; Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Public Service Corporation, 142 Ga. 841, 83 S.E. Rep. 946; Producers' Transp. Co. v. Railroad Commission of State of California, 251 U.S. 228, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 131; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U.S. 467, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265; Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil Gas Co., 250 U.S. 394, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526; Englewood v. Denver S. P. R. Co., 248 U.S. 294, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 100; City of San Antonio v. San Antonio Public Service Co., 255 U.S. 547; Paducah v. Paducah R. Co., 261 U.S. 267, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 335; Attorney General v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry., 52 Fla. 646, 41 South. Rep. 705; State ex rel. Triay v. Burr, 79 Fla. 290, 84 South.

Restraint under the Federal Constitution, there certainly was none ( City of Worcester v. Worcester Con. St. Ry. Co., 196 U.S. 539, 548; Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 178; Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Pub. Service Corp., supra; Postal-Tel. Cable. Co. v. Associated Press, supra; City of Englewood v. Denver So. P. Ry. Co., 248 U.S. 294; New Orleans v. New Orleans Water Works Co., 142 U.S. 79; People ex rel. Vil. of South Glens Falls v. P.S. Comm., supra).

No contract can withdraw from the legislature the power of regulation while the consent of the municipality to the presence of the road continues. That is settled beyond doubt ( Matter of Quinby v. Public Service Comm., supra, p. 260; Union Dry Goods Co. v. GeorgiaP.S. Corp., 248 U.S. 372; City of Englewood v. Denver S.P. Ry. Co., 248 U.S. 294; Milwaukee Electric Ry. Light Co. v. Wisconsin R.R. Comm., 238 U.S. 174; City of Rochester v. Rochester R.R. Co., 182 N.Y. 99, 115). The legislature may say that, subject to the condition subsequent annexed to the consent of the locality, there shall be a change of motive power or an increase of the rates.