Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-06-29
LICENSE MUST Be PAID
WHICH is IS on EACH INSTRUMENT


The Supreme Court handed down An
important opinion today In the case =,
Ogden city against william w. cros,
man and the Rocky Mountain nsn
Telephone company.rcmnndlng the cas.
back TO the trial court with instruction.
TO reverse and set aside the order ma
Judgment. but to discharge the a.,
PENDANTS from custody.
The main question involved In thl,
case was tho validity 81 an ordinane.
requiring the defendants TO bay
license Zee Of y per annum Tor each
telephone instrument, II having been
contendcd that The ordinance WIS an
Interference with the Interstate com.
mcrcc law.
Defendants also denied that II,
amount 81 the license N excessive al
unreasonable; that II r. impoaod q,
revenue purposea only, and not wltAh
the exercise OF police power; that hay.
Ing paid IT, proportion Of the g,nsnl
tax. Il ought not 90 be compelled 90
pay an adItoudal tax under the gul,s
Of license.
II was further commended that the Vt.
dlnancc rs void because It attempts 10
punish by nnc and Imprisonment The
failure to pay a purely revenue TAX.
ON the first contention the supreme
court nnds that the ordinance wa 20,
intended 90 apply 10 the business %
tho def udauta. which h. interstate N
its character. but that the ordinance
was only intended 90 enect che local
buslncrs " the telephone company
done within Ogdcn city. ~ shown from
the rental u the telephone ir ogden.
A. 20 the second contention thr court
holds that the ordinance In question
was passed by virtue N 10" ,Krtels
power and authority NJ tho statute at
authorized by the Constitution.
Tho third claim ni the defendant ths
court holds that the proc.UuinE D. u0t
a. collect license. but proceeding 90
enforce % penalty Tor IT, violation
"Surh ordinance" gays thH court,
Impose D. nHliy by nm Ur impUfBn.
mont. when authorized hv ~. organic
law. have been almost unyprily or.
held WHOM brought 20 the attention u
the courts"
Il. d, ord ln the case shown that la
JUNE. 1896. iht defendants were ar.
rested hy She authorities of ogden city
charged with violation uf au 0rdl.
nance requiring them 90 ply "a license
Of 81 per unuum Tor each Instrument
Failure Go comply with ~. ordinance
provided u iuo NJ not exceeding 500.
or 100 days imprisonment Thu hear.
lux was md before JuftlrU uf ts
NNHNas.NafHH ssaNs. A
defendants guilty nH charged. md im.
posed "a line " g each The cnss was
appealed and iti,d before iudr, no.
lupp. who found the drtpTdau'r not
guilty, ON thu ground thnt tho iui0rma.
ton did not state facts ruri0.ant 10
constitute "a public oifCnrU. and that The
ordinance itself was void and unson.
.iiiuilrnll frrn this judgment os.
den city appealed
The defendants moved g. dgm'rs ne
appeal upon the grounds that The au-
prome court had nu iuflHlcinu from
verdict ~ not guilty. ana that 30 ap'
peal viii lic from n verdict NJ not Eill.
~ rendered by court ur jury, tor
violation ~ city ordinance.
on this point tho court holds that
when n nppahtH the cunHtltutinnalliS
~ "A statute ~ raised aud decided rs
the district court. then the Suprrms
court has Jurisdiction ana musteNsmlus
the Judgment 10 determine whether o.
not The statutory question was correct
~ decided. ana n n was, 60 affirm N,
Judgment
Concluding, tho court nnda that
Judgr Uolnpp erred IN nndlng tho de-
PENDANTS not guilty ana IN dIHmHlIng
the complaint on the grounds already
stated "irasmuch ne tho def ndnnh
have been tried end acquitted upon mo
charge" says thH court, "ihe case Il
rsmanded with instructions 90 Tho trial
court a. set aside she order ana inlT'
mont hut 20 discharge the defendants
from custody"
The opinion a. written BY justice
Miner. chief Justice Zane and Juaute
Bnrtch concurrlng.