The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-04-11
THE TELEPHONE MONOPOLY AND
THE LAW.


The williams Telephone bill was taken up
in the Senate yesterday, and adjournment
left the discussion of it unfinished. Senator
Foulke, Republican, delivered an argument,
which has been days under preparation,
against the constitutionality of the meas
ure. So thorough lawyer is Mr.. Foulke.
and so converssnt with the plesdings and
authorities on which corporations rely to
impose upon the public, that he was justly
relied on by the monopolist opponents
of the Williams bill to say every
word that might be strained to up
hold their side. His discourse was q cold
blooded presentation of the legal preten-
sions of soulless corporations always against
the people.
We submit that in this matter and in any
question between monopoiies and the PEG.
pie, wherein the constitutionelity or .un-
constitutionality of it is the issue, the people
should be given the benefit of the legislation.
sor the monopolies have then tbs Supreme
Court OF the State and Nation to fall back
upon to decide upon the issne. The
Legislature is not the body to pass
upon questions of constitutionality,
nor is Mr.. Senator Foulke in his capacity of
legislator, jurist whose opinions are TO be
taken for judicial decisions. II the tele.
phone monopolists and their champions in
the Senate are so thoroughly satisfied that
the Williams bill is unconstitutional why
make such strenuous efforts to defeat it?
Why not allow its passage and then
promptly remit the question OF its constitu-
tionality to the courts? Why are lawyers
and lobbyists from the four points OF the
compass employed to work against the
bill, and capitalists Of the Ameri-
can Bell Telephone and Western Union
Telegraph Companies hocked here to use
money to secure its defeat? This wordy OPP
position to the bill by Senator Foulke and
those on his side is costing the State thou.
sands of dollars. It would have cost the
monopolists far less than they are paying
out to have permitted the bill to pass and
then to have secured the decision of the
Court against its constitutioDality, If uncon-
stituhonal it be.
But the monopolists know they dare not
submit to that test. They k oH that in
long line OF cases the Supreme Court of this
State lays down the rule that "it must APP
pear very clearly that the legislation Is re-
pugnant to or in conflict with some express
provision of the Constitution or the statute
will be upheld.
at is not enough that the constitutionality
of the legislation may seem doubtful; for in
such case the benefit of the doubt must be
given in favor of the constitutionality OF the
statute" In other words If there is in
question between grssping monopoly and
the people seeming doubt, the people must
in the hair.splitting have the benefit Of the
doubt.
The case of Patterson VS.. Kentucky, 10
U. S. Reports, page soil, fully and clearly
disposes of the pretended opposition to the
Williams Telephone bill. 1t was claimed
yesterday by the special pleader for the mo-
nopoly that the State had no power to regu-
late the property or business OF CORPORA
ton in using an article protected by letters
patent frem the United States beyond a
mere police regulation. But fortunately for
the people the Supreme Court hes
settled the question the other
way in the case above referred to.
Chief Justice Harlan says: THE right of
property in the physical substance, which
is the fruit OF the discovery. is altogether
distinct from the right in the discovery
itself. .. It's employment may be Sc
cured and protected by National authority
against all interference; but the use of the
tangible property which comes into ex-
istence by the application of the discovery
is not beyond the control of State legisla-
ton, simply because the patentee acquires q
monopoly in his discovery. .. There
remains in him, as in every other citizen.
the power to manage his property, or give
direction to his labors, at his pleasure, sub
ject only to the paramount claims OF So
ciety, which requires that his enjoyment
may be modified by the exigencies of the
community to which he belongs, and regu-
lated by laws which render it subservient
to the general public, if held subject to
State control"
We quote only part of the decision. Sem
ators should, however. read the case in full.
The State has the clear and well defined
right to regulate hacks, street cars, railroads,
telegraph and telephone companies, and all
corporations and companies that hold them
! selves out to the public as common carriers
of freight or passengers for hire, or for the
! transmission for paw of news or information.
| The use of patent vehicle or appliance in
no way changes or sbrogstes this rule, Sen.
| ator Foulke can hardly lead anybody to be-
lieve that 8 corporation ,an orgsnizs under
the laws Of this State. and proceed to use
and occupy streets, high ways and publ and
private property, and yet remain exempt
/ from taxation and be above sad beyond
legislative regulation or control.
How IS ii thus? The Chicago ballot-box
was stolen in q Republican ward. The ward