The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-02-21
DEFEAT FOR THE MONOPOLY.
The Supreme Court Finally Renders It's
Decision in the Telephone Cases.
The Company Loses Each Point Inyolyed-No
Statement Yet Made as to Their Prob
able Course in the Future.

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case
Involving the validity Of the act limiting the
genital Of telephones to So a month which has
been rather anxiousy expected for several
weeks, was delivered yesterday. There were
three separate cases against the Central Union
Telephone Company decided in the Marion
county courts adversely to the company,
and each of these was appealed
to the Supreme Court One was q criminal pro-
ceeding against John e. Hockstt the official
representative of the company in this city, for
violating the statute prohibiting charge Of
more than 90 month. and it was in this case
that the Supreme Court decision was rendered;
but SO far as the questions regarding the consti-
Sutionality of the law are concerned, it covers
all Of the cases. It Is understood that
Ehe telephone company will appeal to the
meantime they will be compelled to comply with
the provisions Of the law
The opinion in the case was written by Judge
Niblaek, aud was prepared with scrupulous care,
considerable time having been devoted to DELHI
GRAFTON and research in its consideration.
In the constitutional questions in
yolved, and the general effect
upon public interests, the decision is one Of the
most important ever delivered by the Indiana
Supreme Court Following the quotation of the
statute enacted by the Legislature. the decision
is as follows:
On the 9th day of July, 1885, Theodore P
Haughey requested the Central Union Telephone
Company, corporation organized under the
laws of the State Of Illinois, but owning and op-
srating a telephone exchange and system Of tels
phone lines at the city of Indianapolis. in this
his residence upon his farm, four nd 0ne-half
miles from tho companys telephone exchange
knd two miles outside of the corporate
limits Of the city Of indianapolis,
and to connect such telephone with the exchange
by the erection Of the necessary poles and wires.
In response to this request the company offered
to rent to Haughey hand telephone and mag
neto-bell, and to connect them with its ex-
change, and to furnish exchange service from
o'clock A. NJ until o'clock p. NJ. each day, for
So per month, the company to have the right to
place other subscribers upon the Same line. But
Haughey declined to accept that offer, and
instead entered into contract with the company
for the use of lone battery transmitter and one
magneto-telephone and the necessary appliances
for connecting them with the exchange upon
eersajn terms and conditions named ir the con-
tract. for which he agreed to pay the sum of
$33 so for each quarter or $11. 16 % per month.
The contract says: ''The above total sum is
based upon the charges iternzed as follows:
Rental Of one magneto-telephone and battery
transnitter two tslephones. at the rate of. per moo
Labor and service charges for switching. con.
strueton and maintenance charges for lines.
batteries centratodice apparatus, magneto-ben
and other appurtenances, at the rate of. LA
The telephone company buiii.t. the line and fur
nished the equipments for the use Of Haughey,
called for by its contract with him.
AT the expiration Of the first three
months after the contract went into
effect the appellant John Il. Hockett acting
as the district superintendent and general agent
of the company at Indianapolis. demanded of and
received from Haughey the sum of $50. so,
claimed to be due under the contract for the lat
itsrs use of the line and equipments therein pro-
lyided for during the preceding three months
IAN information was thereupon filed againet
iHockett, charging him with a violation Of the
provisions OF the act OF the Legislature and upon
Iproof of the matters above stated. with
Others -. Of .., formal incidental or
court below found him guilty Of having charged
more for the use of a telephone than the law per-
mitted him to do. as well ss the company he rep
resented, and, after overriding a motion for o
new trial, adjudged that he pay a fne as PEN
atty for the commission OF a criminal ofense
1t was shown at the trial that the articles
furnished for Hauehey as . telephone equip
ment as well as the other mechan-
ical contrivances used by the company
In the transmission Of words and sounds
ever it's wires, patented articles. and that the
company holds the right TO use these patented
articles by assignment either direct or remote,
from the patentees It is first and most earnest
iy contended that. as the articles used by the
company, as above stated, are patented under the
Constitution and laws Of the United States, the
legislature of State has power to limit the
price, use, sale or rental value of such
articles. and that. as consequence, all
sfass wbieh ths bsfass
Us belongs, are imperative, and Intellectual for
any practical purpose. Ccnceding the force, as
well as the plausibiisy. of many of the argu-
ments and illustrations used by counsel, the
ready and, indeed, inevitable answer is that the
question thus presented ought no longer be re-
garded as an open question. There is reserved
and, at the same time, wellrecoenized power, af-
fecting their domestic concerns, remaining
in all the States which the govern
ment of the United States can not
and has seldom attempted to invade This
power is so varied and comprehensive that an
exact definition, as applicable to all its phases,
has so far been found to be irnpracticable, but
the Instances IN which the existence OF such a
power has been judically recognized in partic
tular cases are quite numerous. as well
as various in their application to
our complex system of government
This reserved power is usually, though per-
,haps not always accurately, denominated the
police power of State and embraces the entire
System of internal State regulation, having in
view not only the preservation of public order
and the prevention of offenses against the State
but also the promotion of such intercourse be-
tween the inhabitants OF the State as is calcu-
lated to prevent conflict of rights, and to pro-
mote the interests of ALL lCooley's Constitutional
Limitation, Section 572 1t power inherent
in every sovereignty, and is, in its
broadcast sense, nothing more than tho
power of the State to govern men and things
within the limits of its own dominion. License
Cases 46 u. S.. 5S2 It extends to the protection
of the lives. limbs, health, comfort and conven-
ieuce we'll as the property OF all persons with
In the State 1t authorizes the Legislature to
prescribe the mode and manner in which every
one may so use his own as not to injnrs others.
ana to DO whatever is necessary to promote the
public welfare. not inconsistent with