Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-07-27
Files an Affidavit in Case Involving
Telephone Rates.
ADDRESS BY COUNSEL FOR COMPANY
Claim That Provision of Law A.
fects Official Service Only.
RATES IN OTHER CITIES

| suit on trial is that of J. F. Manning & Co.
who seek an injunction against the Chesa-
| peake and Potomac Telephone Company to
restrain the removal of their phone and
also restraining the company from charging
a rate of rental in excess of the $50 maxi
| mum fixed by act of Congress approved
June SO last. 'T-'5'
Mr.. A. H. Hoehling of counsel for the
| telephone company opened the morning S
proceedings by reading an affidavit from
| Samuel NJ. Bryan, president of the Chesa-
| peake and Potomac company in answer to
| the affidavit submitted yesterday by Mr..
Birney, giving the result of the telephone
investigation by Congress. Mr.. Bryan's
| affidavit declares that the amendment to
| the appropriation bill fixing the rate for
telephones was passed by the House of
| Representatives without any Investigation
of the matter whatever. The conference
committee was not called upon to deal with
| the question, as both houses of Congress
were of one accord. They arbitrarily fixed
| the rates. The congressional committee he
declares never completed its work.
1t is set forth that the defendant COM
| pany's predecessor in the District of CO.
| lumbia was the National Capital Telephone
Company, Ecensee of the American Bell
| Telephone Company The rights of the Ma
| tional Capital Company were assigned to
| the Chesapeake and Potomac Company. 1t
| is admitted that the capital of the local
| company is $2,65O,0O0 and that $50 900 of
| this amount represents the plant in Wash
tngton, the remainder representing the COM
| pany's interest in Maryland and part of
West Virginia. 1t is admitted, also, that
the National Capital Company expended
| only 1l,234.93 in constructing the Wash
| ngton plant. 1t expended all its income,
however, for four years in perfecting and
developing it's plant Seven hundred and
fifty thousand dollars of the Chesapeake
and Potomac Ccmpanys stock was paid
to the National Capital Company for the
interest it held in the District of Columbia
When the Chesapeake and Potomac Com
pany secured the franchise the system
was nearly all overhead wires, whereas
since that time the company has been COM
PEELED to place greater part of them I'M
foreground.
Amount Paid in DividenGs.
1t is shown that about $4,000 has been
paid in dividends by the Chesapeake and
Potomac Company in the last fourteen
years, an average of 2.97s per cent year.
Dividends in 1897 were four per cent.
In railroad and me nufacturing corpora
ticns Mr.. Bryan declares that the best au-
thorties the subject agree that to meet
exigencies and to keep the plant in good
condition conservative Il ageme1t re-
QUires that the earnings =. II exceed the
actual expenses y from ~ 70 .,5 PEI cent.
He further says THAI the counts of the
telephone company for Its BUSINESS il the
District of Columbia show tat the bus
mess for the last six years raS not welded
| anything like such percentage in excess of
the actual expenses of conduct ng its bus
mess.
A table of the charges for phones in New
Y ork, brooklyn, Chicago and other large
cities was submitted, showing the average
to be in excess of the rates charged at
present in Washington.
Mr.. Hemphill of counsel for the plaintiffs
said that in these cities there was no conf
petition to he Bell company. The salaries
paid by the company to its officers were
shown as follows: President, vice pres
ident and general manager, Mr.. Bryan.
s., 600; treasurer, 5000; secretary and pur-
chasing agent, 81, 100; auditor, 81, 5O0-a to-
tai Of $4,000.
Mr.. Bryan declares that during the years
1892, '93. "a and 80 if all the telephones in
use had been paid for at the rate of $50 per
annum the revenue derived therefrom
would not have been equal to the actual
expenses necessary to supply the service.
In conclusion, he said 1t was not true that
by increasing the number of telephones The
cost to the company of each telephone is
diminished; on the contrary, as the number
of telephones increases the cost of each
telepho ne and supplying the service is in
creased.
Argument by Defense.
After concluding the reading of the aff1-
davit. Mr.. Hoehlil proceeded with his
argument He claimed that the act of
Congress was unjust, in that it did not dis
criminate between the man who would use
his telephone 1900 times a year and the
one who would perhaps not have 800 calls
during the same period. The present rates
of the company are arranged that the
subscribers pay according TO the amount
of service rendered.
Mr. Hoehling here made the point that
the petitioner in the Manning case AS we'll
as in all others asking for injunction. had no
right to bring such suits In each case as
shown in the declarations, the contract
with the telephone company had been ex-
pressy brought to a termination. This
being SO, the complainants became non
subscribers, and had no more rights than
the person who had never been a sub
scriber had telephone service They
have no rights to be deprived Of and there
is absolutely nothing to enjoin They were
asking the company to furnish them ser
vice at the new rates, and their only course
of action should be through mandamus
proceedings
PrOvfsO Limited in Scope.
Mr.. Hoehling, continuing, said that the
$50 rate was fixed in a proviso attached to
a paragraph in the District appropriation
BILL appropriating $ll 800 for telephone
supplies and service for the District CT Co.
lumbia government. Under authorities on
Interpretation of statutes, this proviso was
limited in scope and effect to the foregoing
subject-matter 1t was simply a Limitation
of the application of the appropriation for
telephone service furnished the District of
Columbia, and does not under any circum-
stances apply to business and private tel
phones and service.
In response to interrogatories from JUS
tice Hagner. Mr.. Hoehling declared that
the only beneficiary under the Limitation of
teiephonic rental charges is the District of
Columbia, and that in the absence Of other
provisions the United States government
would necessarily have to pay for phones
at the rate prescribed by the company. He
then quoted the Constitution of the United
States showing that no man shall be de-
prfved of his property without cause and
compensation. 1t is claimed by the com
,pany that 1t would be ruined by an en-
forcement Of the $50 law, and that its
property would be practically confiscated.
Attorney Wilson Follows,
Mr.. Jere NJ Wilson of counsel for the
telephone company, followed Mr. Hoehling
He took the ground, in opening, that the
compliments were not properly in court
because it is not alleged that the rate
fixed by Congress is reasonable one. He
said that the evidence adduced in court
shows conelusively that the company can
not furnish the service required of 1t at the
rate fixed by law. The ,complainants. he