The times., 1898-09-14
TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS
New Patrons Get No Benefit
of Recent legislation.
THE OLD RATES DEMANDED
1t May BE Next Spring or Summer
Hefore the Suits I'm Court Will
Have Hearing and Until Then
There VIII BE No Change in the
Tariff Now Demanded.

Prospective and even the present pat 1
rons of the telephone service of the
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Com
pany are in quandary as to what actual
ly are the rights and privileges under
the act of Congress of June 80. 1898 regu-
lating the rate of service within the Dis
trict.
The terms of the act are plain and
mandatory providing that, after the date
of its passage sit SHALL be unlawful for
any person or any telephone company
doing business In the District of Columbia
TO charge or receive more than $50 per
annum for the use of a telephone on
separate wire; $40 for telephone there
not being more than two on wire; $50
for each telephone there being not more
than three on a wire. and $25 for each
telephone there being four or more on
the same wire
This language is plain, but when the
patrons of the telephone company an
nounced their intention TO take advantage
of the benefit of the law as prescribed by
Congress that corporation said it could
not be done, as the act was unconstitu-
tional, and meant. as they also said,
virtually a coniscation of rights and
property. and notified their subscribers
that if they did not comply with the
terms of the contracts made before the
passage of the act of June 30, it would
remove its telephone instruments and
appliances from the premises of the pat
rons
a score or more of the patrons of the
telephone company then applied to the
District Court for relief in the form of an
injunction and mandamus proceedings.
The subscribers were represented in cour:
by Messrs Birney and Woodward, and
the telephone company by Messrs. Wilson
and Hoeling.
The various question involved, especially
that of the constitutionality of the act,
were argued at length, and Justice Hag-
ner. before whom the preliminary hearing
was held, after having the matter under
advisement for several days, decided that
the law was constitutional, and granted
a restraining order prohibiting the tele-
phone company from removing its instru-
ments, and allowing the patrons to pay
for the service at the rates fixed by the
act of Congress.
Those using telephones are required to
| give surety TO secure the company against
| loss in the event the Supreme Court of
| the United States shall decide the act un-
constitutional.
This decision. X was understood would
| also apply to the mandamus proceedings
which were instituted to compel the tele-
/ phone company to place telephone in
| struments where desired by patrons at
. toe -aG hx- -T,,,
| phone company determined to carry the
matter to the higher court. and there
! is hardly any doubt that before the case
| is ended il will find its way 10 the United
| States Supreme Court and IT is the opin-
| ion of counsel interested that the end
will not be reached until next Spring or
! Summer In the meantime the residents
| of the District are getting no benefits
| from the law enacted by Congress.
As a matter of fact however. the old
| subscribers are in much better position
| in relation to the telephone company than
! is any prospective patron, for the old sub
| scribers, under the order of Justice Hag-
ner, can compel the company 10 furnish
| them telephone service at the rate pres
cribed by law, while the applicant for a
| new service must pay the full rate estab-
lished by the company. or do without the
| cOnveniences of a telephone
OF course, when the company refuses
| to place an instrument in the office or
residence of an applicant for their service
he or she, as the case may be, may seek
| relief from the courts in mandamus pro.
ceedings 10 compel the telephone company
to set up an instrument on the premises
and under the ruling of Justice Hagnel
a few days ago there is little doubt thai
the petition would be granted.
The company however, could avoid
complying with the order of court anC
defeat the wish of the prospective patror
no matter how much Inconvenience 4
may cause him. by giving bond and ap
pealing TO the higher court, where il a
least would find safety for months tc
come. So it will be seen that so far a!
the prospective patron is concerned, til,
recent act of Congress brings him no re
lief.
According to the terms of the law, ever
under the restrictions of the restrain
ing order issued by Justice Hagner. a new
subscriber would be able TO procure tn
service of a first-class telephone for $50
but by using its privilege of appeal th
| telephone company can avoid furnisain,
the service unless the proposed patroI
pays its established rate of S125 for tn
use of an instrument within a distanc
of a mile of the central office. and tn
graduated scale of prices adopted by tn
company and in force long before Con
gress enacted any legislation upon tn