The times., 1898-08-05

terday handed down an elaborate opinion |
in the case of James +. Manning e. Co. |
against the Chesapeake and Potomac Tel
ephone Company. granting the Injunction
asked for and declaring the act of Con-
gress of June so, 1898, which regulates
and fixes the rates for telephone service
in the District to be unconstitutional. The
decision in this case virtually ends the
proceedings in score or more similar
suits instituted against the telephone
company by other subscribers for its tel
ephone service.
According TO the terms of. the decision.
the patrons of the telephone company will
only be compelled to pay for telephone
service at the rates prescribed by the act
of June 80. which fixes the highest price
at $50 per annum for a single instrument
until such time as the injunction may be
| dissolved or the law declared unconstitu-
tional by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
There is no doubt that when the cause
comes up for a further hearing. if the
subscribers are again successful, the tele-
phone company will then carry the case
TO the Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia, and If defeated again before
that tribunal will make a final appeal TO
the Supreme Court of the United States.
1t is the general opinion that if the de
cision in suits for injunction are sus-
tanned by the court of final resort that
the proceeding for mandamus which has
been instituted TO compel the telephone
| company to furnish patrons with tele-
phone instruments and appliances accord
| ing to the terms of the act of Congress
| will also be successful. as the two matters
are so closely connected as to be hardly
| separable
AS the mandamus proceedings will be
passed on by jury on the law side of the
District Court, decision cannot be had
until the FAN term of court, which con-
VeneS in October.
In the meantime. however. Mr.. Justice
| Hagner has issued an order prohibiting
the telephone company from charging its
| subscribers more than the rates fixed by
| the act of Congress. The order, however,
| also provides that the patrons must en-
| ter into bond with good and sufficient
| surety TO secure the telephone company
| against loss in the event of the Supreme
| Court Of the United States declaring the
act of Congress of June 80. 1895. unconsti-
| tutional.
Justice Hagner's opinion is as follows:
The first objections made by the defend
ant TO the granting of the restraining
| der is that the complainants. after their
notices of July 2 and y. no longer stood
! in the relation OF contractors with the
| defendant company having any claim
/ which could be enforced in equity: but
that whatever injury they can complain
| of is enforceable at law against the COM
pany.
The complainants. though desirous to
/ change that part of the contract resrect-
ing the previous price of the service,
| never intimated a purpose 20 abandon
| the use of the instrument: but claim the
| tight to use 1t at the rates established
by the statute. The first notice only ex-
| pressed the desire OF the complainants 10
terminate the contract of July !, 1897 ten
| days after the notice should be received
| by the defendant. The company. in its
| reply OF the 5th. acknowledged it had re-
| ceived the notice on the 4th. and con-
| tented itself with saying the telephone
| would be removed on the l4th. and a bill
sent for the amount due to that date.
Rate Fixed by Congress.
In the complainants' answer OF the 18th
Of July. before the expiration of the ten
days. they declared their purpose TO re-
tain the telephone, but at the rate fixed
| by the act OF Congress. and rendered pay
ment at that rate for the first quarter in
advance. This explained that they still
considered themselves as in relations of
contract with the defendant, and that
they desired the existing contract to con-
tinue in force in every particular except
as to the new price of the service which
had been fixed by the act of June 30, 1885,
The defendants letter of the 18th. while
stating that he could not furnish the
| service at the new rates because they
were insufficient. added they would be
pleased TO continue TO furnish you (the
compiainantsD service at the rate and
| in accordance with the conditions named
in your present contract or to furnish
you any other service it is able to supply
at the rates and under the conditions.
it has established for such services
On the 18th, and before the expiration
of the ten days after the company had
received the first notice. the complainants
filed their bill. while the original con-
| tract still remained in force. l consid-
er this objection untenable.
II is next objected that the clause es-
tablishing the new rates, even if valid.
has no application to any individual tel
ephone service, but applies only TO such
service as may be rendered for the pub
lie to the District of Columbia, for this
service rendered to said District for fire.
| alarm, police and other purposes"
In support of this contention it is point
ed out that the clause appears at the
end of the subdivision in the District
appropriation bill under the head lines.
Telegraph and Telephone Service" max
ing appropriation for that service in these
words:
; The Act Is Quoted
Provided. that from and after the
passage of this act it shall be unlawful
for any person or any telephone company
. | doing business in the District of Columbia a
to charge or receive more than $50 per