Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-07-26
RATES FOR PHONES
Issue Between G. and P. Company
and Its Patrons.
HEARING BEFORE JUSTICE HAGNER
Test Upon Contention of James
F. Manning & Co.
PROCEEDINGS IN COURT

The hearing to decide whether or not the
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Com
pany shall comply with the act of Congress
approved June ~ last. fixing the maximum
rate of rental for telephone and exchange
service al so per year. was begun shortly
before II O'Clock this morning in Equity
Court No l. Mr. Associate Justice Hagner
presiding.
The case taken up this morning, deci-
sion Of which will affect all the cases al
ready in court and those that may he
brought in the future, is that of James F.
Manning & Co of 18th and II streets north
west. The compliments seek an injunction
restraining the telephone company from
removing their phone and requiring it to
accept payment in accordance with the
rates fixed by Congress. Manning & Co.
and al. the other compliments against the
Chesapeake and Potomac company. are rep
resented by Messrs. Birney & Woodland
and J. J. HemphilI. Mr. Birney read the
declaration in the suit. showing that the
telephone company had been rendered
$3.50 in advance payment of quarter
years rental under the new law. The ten
der was refused.
Mr. Jere NJ Wilson, attorney for the de-
PENDANT company, read the lengthy answer
and attached affidavits filed by his client.
In this answer il is alleged that the new
the District of Columbia for public service,
such as police phones. fire alarm, etc.
Telephones. il IS declared, cannot De fur
DiShei to private parties at the rates fixed
In the new law without great loss to the
company. A compulsory compliance with
the law would be a virtual conflscatlon OF
the COmpanT's property, 1t Is further al
legged. Thus the ground is taken That the
law is violation OF the fourteenth amend
ment TO the Constitution. and should De de-
cIared unconstitutional The afiidavits read
were from employees of the telephone COM
pany. leading TO show that the company
cannot be ru1 on reduced expenses. except
to the prejudice Of its service to patrons.
President Samuel Nj Bryan of the Chess
aTeake and Potomac Company was an in
tereSted listener
Mr. Birney's Reply.
Mr. Birnay addressed the court. declaring
that the affidavits submitted by the de-
PENDANT should not be considered unless he
had the right to answer them, He said
that the injunction asked should be grant
Cd for the defendants had not answered
any of the allegations made in the original
bill.
Here Mr.. Birney offered in evidence an
affidavit made by himself concerning the
telephone hearing before Congress and
what was brought out at that time.
Counsel for The defendant company OBJ
jected to this. saying that the compliments
had no right to supplement their bill in this
manner. The affidavit was admitted with
the understanding that the defendants shall
he allowed 70 reply TO ii with counter am
davit.
The affidavit of Mr. Birney showed that
he attended the congressional investigation
as attorney for the Telephone Subsor i5ers
Association. 1t appeared from the testi-
mony that the Chesapeake and Potomac
company is a icenSee of the American Bell
Telephone Company, which is the owner Of
more than one-haIf the stock of the local
company. The local company is compelled
to fix its rates according TO the schedule of
the Heensor. The capital stock of the Ches-
apeake and Potomac company was shown
to be s.. 10000. of which sIJ0.Oo0 belongs to
the District of Columbia part of the bus
mess. The total amount of cash from this
contributed TO the construction of the exist
ing telephone plant in Washington was ST.
S349S.
1t also appeared that in the seven years
ending December 81. 1897, the amount
taken from receipts in the District of Co
lumbia for payments of dividend on the
capital stock was Sl3S.I5o, and that the sur
plus earnings during that period were S24s.
226 e. being in excess of all expenses, in
terest. charges and dividends.
The Rates in Other Cities.
Mr.. Birney gave the result Of his cores
pondence with other cities in regard to the
rates prevailing there. 1t appeared that In
every case where a competing telephone
company had established itself the rates of
charges, as well by the lcensee of the
American Bell Telephone Company as by
the competing company. are far below the
rates charged In this city, and are only
rarely in excess of the rates fixed by the
act Of Congress Of June 30, 1898 Many in
stances Of exceedingly low rates by the
Bell companies are quoted. The case of
Detroit, Mich. is especially pointed out
1t is a city of 2O5.OOO population against
10000 in Washington. Each city requires
a portion of the wires to be underground
In Detroit the Bell exchange has 200 sub
scribers and the rates are for business
phones S38. for residences S24 per year. In
Washington the existing rates reach a
maximum Of S12J a year for business
phones. IL was argued by Mr.. Birney that
with the reduced rates the business of the
telephone company would greatly increase.
Mr.. Birney was citing authorities when
recess was taken at 12:3O O'Clock.
Cites Authorities.
The hearing was resumed at / o'clock
Mr.. Birney continuing TO quote from court
decisions In cases similar TO the present
suit. one hour was consumed in this, and
at o'clock an adjournment was taken until
tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr. .. T. Thomas, attorney for the Dis
trict. was present at the hearing, following
the case closely in all its details.