The times., 1898-07-28
IN THE TELEPHONE SUITS
The Attorneys Conclude Argu-
ments in the Manning Case.
THE DECISION is WITHHELD
The AffidHvft Of President Bryan
Severely Criticised by Counsel for
the Plaintiffs - MIR. Wilson, At
torney for the Defendant, Claims
Plaintiff Is Not Properly I'm Court.

Arguments in the injunction proceed
ings Instituted against the Chesapeake
and Potomac Telephone Company by
James F. Manning & Co. which have oc-
cupied she attention of Circuit Court No.
for the last three days. were concluded
yesterday afternoon.
The closing argument was made for the
complainauts by ]. J. Hemphili. Justice
Hagner. who presided al the hearing, has
reserved mis- decision.
When the hearing was resumed yester-
day morning, A H Hoehling. associ-
ated with Judge Jere NJ. Wilson.
counsel for the Chesapeake and Poto-
mac Telephone Company. began the pro-
~aedings by submitting affidavits in
refutation of rhe allegations of MIR.
Birney yesterday. in behalf of the plain
tiff. James F. Manning.
Mr.. Hoehdng also stated that the best
authorities on the subject of the man
agement of corporations agree thac in
order TO meet all contingencies the earn
ings should exceed the expenses by from
80 TO 80 per cent, and that an examina-
ton of the amounts OF the company's
business has shown no such percentage
has been yielded during the last six
years.
The defense also maintained that If all
the telephones in use from 1892 to 1895.
had been rented at rate of $50 per an
num- the revenue derived would not
/ have been sufficient TO meet the actual
expense necessary to supply the serv-
/ ice
In conclusion Mr.. Hoehling said the
! plaintiff had. no right TO institute pro-
ceedings against the company btcause
! the suing subscribers, had. OF their own
/ vo,itfoa. terminated contracts with the
company for telephone service. He
claimed that the plaintiffs source of re-
/ lief Is through mandamus proceedings
Mr.. Hoehling stated that during the last
! fourteen years $4,000 had been paid in
dividends. which made a percentage OF
! 297S per cent per annum. For the year
1897 he said the dividend was per cent.
/ lie also incorporated in his affidavit
table showing the telephone rates charged
IN osti-r large cfies. the same being in ex-
cess Of those charged by the Chesapeake
and Potomac Telephone Company in this
city. As part of the expense of maintain
ing the telephone service the salaries of
the officers, which amount TO over $4,000
was included OF this amoun- the pres
ident Mr.. Bryan, gets 5000, and the
treasurer 5000
Jere NJ Wilson. who closed the case for
the telephone company. maintained that
the plaintiffs We're not properly in court.
because rley did not allege that me rates
fixed Oy the aC. CT Congress are reasOna-
bic and JUS ASIDE from this and the
point made by Mr. HOehIing that relief
should have been sought through manda-
mus proceedings. instead OF writ of in
junu-ica. the telephone company rested
is case on the allegations made in the
afidavJ,s Of Mr.. Bryan and other officers
Of the company.
Mr.. Hemphil IN his argument severely
criticised the methods OF the telephone
company. He said il was unfair that il
should ccme into court with the affidavits
Of its officers. all interested parties. and
ask that the injunction should not be
granted. He doubted the state Of affairs
as shown b. these affidavits and said if
the Subscribers mad an opportunity 30 eX-
anime the books Of the company and
cr0ss-eXamine the witnesses who made
these statements. 4 different state of af-
fairs might be developed. There was
nothing 10 show why S750. 900 worth OF the
1 >
up as Sainst the city Of Washington.
He then said something about watered
stock in speaking Of the capitalization OF
the company, but Justice Hagner inter
! rUpted with the suggestion that that was
not a point in question. Mr.. Hemphill
also spoke Of the Chesapeake and Poto-
mac Telephone Company as a 'squatter'
doing business here only through the
courtesy Of Congress.
So far as the plaintiffs rights in court
are concerned. he said. they had the full
protection Of the law. The pr, cess Of in
junction. he said, was the proper one
because the suits were Instituted before
the expiration Of their contract with tht
telephone company, and so FAR as the act
of Congress of June 30. 1898. relating only
TO the use of telephones by the District
is concerned, the proposition was ridicu-
lous. II Congress had not intended tC
cover the whole telephone service in the
District it would not have ordered an in
vestigation at all.
As the decision in this case will prac-
tically effect all the other suits. it is not
probable that any of them viii be taker
up until Justice Hagner renders his opin.
ion.