The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1886-02-24
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
The Telephone Case Affirmed Yesterday in the
Supreme Court.
An Able Opinion by Chief Justice Siblaek,
IN Which the Court Concurs The
Reyiew of the Case by
the Court.

TIE case OF the state OF lnuldnd OK TEL
Dsniel III. Bradbury VS.. John Z. Hockett
was affirmed in the Supreme Court Satur-
day. This Is the famous telephone test case
70 brought in Judge Taylor's Court with the
Criminal Court salt added thereto, upon the
appeaa to the Supreme Court, all decided
against the Central Union Telephone Com
papy, en- which appeals were taken, and the
decision given by the court to-day, while
technically on the Hockett case, really de-
dcides al the points at issue. In effect it is
that the law IS constitutional and that the
extra cha-ges, above 50 month made by the
company, for alleged service, etc, are Illegal,
as by the word telephone the law meant
al the appliances in connection with the
services
Chief Justice Niblack, who has been at work
on ( for several weeks, and all the other
JUDGES conc1rred IN il. In citing the law
and the circumstances leading TO the legal
proceeding, il IS stated that, upon the refusal
Of the company TO give Mr.. Theodore p.
Haughey service at his country home al the
rates crowded by the new law, be signed
what is known asthe new contract" agree
ing to pay rental of one magnetic telephone
and one battery transmltter" at the rate OF
so q year, and for labor, rervice, charges
for switching" etc, at the rate OF STA. At
ne end of three months Superintendent
Rocket demanded $3.50 Of Mr.. Ha1ghey,
and an information was therefore Gled
against HOckett, charging him with VIOLA
ton of the new law, and be was found
guilty of having charged more for the Use
OF telephone than the law admitted, and
fine was entered against him, ne taxing IN
appeal TO the Supreme Court.
On the point raised by the appellant, that
as the various articles used in the telephone
service were all patented under the laws of
the United States the Legislature of State
had no power to limit the price, use, sale or
rental value Of such articles, and that, as
consequence, all acts of State Legislature
Of the class TO which the present law be-
longs, are imperative and Ineffective, the
opinion SAYS: THE ready, and indeed iney-
table, answer is, that the question thus
presented ought no longer be regarded as an
open question. There is a reserved and at
the same time well recognized power affect
ing 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 sometimes denominaoed the
police power of a State and embraces the en-
tire system OF internal State regulation, hav-
ing IN view not only the preservation OF
public order and the prevention of ofenses
against the State, but also the prevention of
such intercourse between inhabitants as is
calculated to prevent conflict of right and
70 promote the interests of ALL" >
Continuing, the Judge says in regard to tele-
phone property, lit is now a well-settled
legal proposition that property thus devoted
to public use becomes legitimate subject of
Legislative regulation and control, and after
quoting a number of authorities IN support
of this proposition, the opinion continues
The Obvious deduction from what has been
. said, as well as from the authorities cited, is
that the power of State legislature TO pre-
scribe the maximum charge which a tele-
phone company may make for services rem
dered, facilities afforded, or articles of prop
% erty furnished for use in its business, is
.plenary and complete"
On the other point raised, i. E., the right of
the company TO charge separately for the
various articles used in the telephone service
claiming that the rental fixed Dy law did not
apply to al of them, the Court says: 'In q
general sense the name telephone applies 70
any instrument which transmits sound be
you'd the Limits of audibility, but since the
resent discovery the name is technically and
prlEnarlly restricted TO an instrument or de-
vice which transmits sounds by means OF
electricity and wires similar TO Geographic
.Tree > In view of the condition OF
things shown to have existed on the 18th day
of April, 1885. we feel constrained to hold
b1ol kl-e WORD te fepnOne, as USED IN the act
of :tha. date, was Intended to designate an
apparatus compo sed Of ell the usual and
necessary instrume vlts for the convenient and
ready transmission and reception of tele-
pSonic messages, and not single instrument
only"
The -oPlnion conclu des: 1.-The judgment is
affirmed w1th costs.''
Superintendent Hottkett of the local ex-
change, and Mr.. Hoyey, representative of
the American Bell 4 'elephcne Company,
were in the Office of the Clerk of the Su-
,preme Court when the q ecision was brought
down and did not appear TO be particularly
surprised at It Mr.. Hook stt sac be was not
prepared TO state what COT vse tie company
would pursue, Ia view of ne new aspect of
affairs and all he should do, would be TO tel
.egraph TO the officers of the company and
await distractions from them. he did not
think hat they had a definite plan Of action
decided upon, as they did not uticipate an
adverse decision. Whether or not they
would shat up their Indiana ex changes or
give d-aerent service for the SO annual
rental, he sTas not prepared to state.