Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-08-04
Justice Hagner Grants Injunction
Against G. and P. Telephone Co.
CONSFIPUTIONALITY OF TEE new LAW
Case to Be Further Heard Upon
All Its Phases.
TEXT OF THE OPINION

Justice Hagner today rendered a decision
in the telephone controversy, holding that
from the evidence submitted he could not
declare the law fixing the maximum rate
of rental for telephones in the District of
Columbia at $50 a year unconstitutional,
and decreeing that temporary injunction
requiring the company to furnish service
al the specified rate be granted until final
hearing can be had, when every phase of
the case will be more fully gone into.
The case on trial was a test one brought
in the name of James F. Manning & Co.,
who have been subscribers to the local COM
pany for a number of years. Under the
provision of the District appropriation bill
the rate of $50 year fixed. Shortly
after the enactment of this law the COM
plainants filed notice of a termination of
their contract, which called for s125 a year,
and gave further notice that they desired
to retain the phone at the new rate. They
rendered $3.50 in payment for the first
quarters rent, but this was refused by the
company and notice served that the tele-
phone would be removed. l. was to re-
stain this removal and to compel the COM
pary to furnish service so long as the COM
plainants continued to pay the $3.50
quarter, or $50 year.
Quite number of attorneys and others
interested in the case were present at noon
in Equity Court No. ! when Justice Hag-
ner arrived. Messrs. Birney and Hemphill,
of counsel for the telephone subscribers,
ard Mr.. Hoehling, who is associated with
Mr.. J. NJ. Wilson in conducting the tele-
phone company's case, were seated around
the tables. anxOusly awaiting the first
words of the judge.
Judge HaSncr's Ruling.
After reviewing the compIainants' bill
and the defendants answer Justice Hag
ner said:
The first objection made by the defend
ant to the granting of the restraining order
is that the compliments after their no
tees of July and II 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
law against the company.
The compliments, though DESTROYS to
change that part of the contract respecting
the previous price of the service. never in
timated a purpose to abandon the use of
the instrument, but claim the right TO use
it at the rates established by the statute.
The first notice only expressed the desire of
the compliments to terminate the contract
of July l. 1897, ten days after the notice
should be received by the defendant The
company in its reply of the 9TH acknowi-
edged it received the notice on the 4th, and
contented itself with saying the telephone
would be removed on the 18th and bill
sent for the amount due to that date.
In the compliments answer of the 18th
of July, before the expiration of the ten
days, they declared their purpose to retain
the telephone, but at the rate fixed by the
act of Congress, and rendered payment 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 continue in force in
every particular except as to the new price
of the service. which had been fixed by the
act of June 30. 1898.
The Defendants Proposition.
The defendants letter of the 18th, while
stating they could not furnish the service
at the new rates. because they were insult
hcient, added they would be pleased to con-
t1nue to furnish you Uhe complainants)
service at the rate and in accordance with
the conditions named in your present con-
tract or to furnish you any other service 1t
Is able to supply at the rates and under the
conditions 1t has established for such SER
vices
'On the 18th, and before the expiration of
the ten days after the company had re-
celved the first notice the compliments
hled their BILL while the original contract
lection untenable.
1T is next objected that the claus, es-
tablshlng the new rates, even if valid has
no appiication to any individual desiring
telephone service, but applies only to such
service as may be rendered for the public
to the District of Columbia, for this service
rendered 10 said District for fire alarm DO
lice ard other purposes.
In support of this contention it is pointed
out that the clause appears at the end of
the subdivision in the District appropria-
ton bill, under the head lines Telegraph
and Telephone Service making approprfa-
Iloh Tor that service in these words:
Provision of Law.
Provided, That from and after the pas
sage of this act it shall be unlawful for
ing business in the District of Columbia to
charge or receive more than $50 per annum
for the use of telephone on a separate
wire; $40 for each telephone, there being
not mere than two on a wire; $50 for each
teiep phone, there being not more than three
on wire, and SO for each telephone, tn ere
being four or more on the same wire
And it is insisted that the clause must
therefore be construed as only a proviso
TO the clause of which it forms part ap-
pTopriat ting money for telephone service
rendered for the District; and that by the
proper rules of construction it's opera-
ton should be confined to what Immediate
iy precedes 1t, unless the contrary clear'y
appears, and should be construed with the
section with which il is connected.
These general principles are to be found
laid down in these WORDS in the author
tiles, and in proper cases are applicable.
Not Within the Rules
But in the view of the character and form
of the appropriation bill before us, 1 do not
consider the clause within these rules.
| In Dwarris on Statutes 11S it is said pro-
! viso is something engrafted upon a preced-
| ing enac tment, and is legitimately used for
| the purpose of taking special cases out of
| the general enactments, and providing spe-
| Cially for them. In its abuse 1t contains
| all urconnected matters and disposes of
| whatever is incapable of combination with
| the rest of any clause"
| The history Of the LEGISLATION M
| with respect TO the general appropria ton
| bills. and especially those relating to
| the District of Columbia, affords abund-
| ant proof that clauses are repeatedly APP
| pended to such measures. with the prefix
| OF the word Provided" Especially toward
| the close of the SESSION., which cannot be
| regarded as ''provisos' in the just sense of
| the legal definition The title of this bill Is