The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-09-18
THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES CLAIM.
Their Defense Told in the Answer to Pa
irons Application for Mandamus.

Yesterday, in Superior Court No. 1, the Cen
trail Union Telephone Company fled an answer
to the relation of Daniel NJ Bradbury, asking
for a writ of mandamus to compel the company
to place telephone in his Office. The answer
waived the writ of mandate and set forth the
organization of defendant company as one sue
ceeding, in 1888, to the rights and privileges of
other companies organized for telephone bust
ness in Indianapolis. After setting forth the
nature of the business, and facilities
first offered to subscribers defendants answer
states that from time TO time new inventions and
new improvements were perfected which greatly
increased the convenience of the business and
Its value to the public. 1t mentions the Blake
battery tranSmitter of the material addi-
tons to the service This, with other improve
ments. required large expenditure, and to
meet 1t prices were from time to time increased.
Considerable detail is given to the manner of
conducting the business, and particular mention
is made of hand telephones, which are rented
separately, without connection by telephone line
OF wire or otherwise with the company's
change. The company also state that they rent
the Blake battery transmitter, with or without
batteries, as the case might be, to persons re-
guessing 1t, without connecting said instruments
by telephone line of wire with the exchange.
Since 1882 the charges have been: Rental, per
year, for each hand telephone, $l0 for each
Blake battery transmitter, per year, $40 Charges
for other facilities have been uniformly $40 per
year.
Defendants claim that long prior to the de-
mand of relator in this cause they offered to the
public generally, through tie press and in many
instances by private notice, to furnish one hand
telephone and cords, one magnetic bell and back
board, to be placed at the request Of an appli-
can't, and connecting the same by wire to their
exchange, and furnish the patron with exchange
service from A. NJ. to p NJ. of each day, Sun
day excepted, at a total charge of So per
month However, defendant reserved
the right to place other subscribers
at defendants option, on the same line of wire
hand telephone and cord back board and
battery box. Blake battery transmitter, one
magnetic bell and cell battery, with all proper
connections IN the exchange service for $50 per
year or So per month
The patents existing on many of these devices
are set up, and it is stated that they are the
property of the American Bell Telephone Com
pany, with whom defendant company have a
contract to use and license the use of said in
struments within radius of fifteen miles from
Indianapolis. 1t is further stated that upon
each battery and transmitter royalty of 81 per
year is paid, and that for the privileges under
the contract $500,000 was pan. They must pay
royalty on each instrument, whether the
use of it is licensed to subscriber
or not Concluding, the answer claims
that said prices cannot be regulated
by the Legislature of Indiana, and further, that
with all these expenses, taken with the contract
streets and alleys, So per month will not Justify
the outlay. The company deny that they have
ever been common carriers of telephone mes
sages, and also deny the constitutionality of the
law passed by the last Legislature, fixing the
price of telephone service.