Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-07-27

| compensation. 1t is against all law for a
court to compel any person or corporation
to do this. To make this company furnish
service at the rate prescribed in the new
law would be a confiscation of property
and violation of the constitution"
Mr. Wilson reiterated the contention
made by the company. that the $50 rate
applies only to telephone service that is
rendered the District of Columbia govern
ment-
For the Defense.
Mr.. ]. ]. Hemphill then began the clos
ing argument on behalf of the complain
arts. He said that he and his associates
were not in court to make the telephone
company furnish a service that they can
not do with profit But" he said, we are
here as citizens of the District OF Column
bia, to say that we want a statute of the
United States enforced"
Mr.. Hemphill declared that the telephone
company was doing business here as
sQuatter," through the courtesy of
Congress. Now, just as soon as This body,
that allows them to exist, fixes a rate they
are TO charge, they come into court and
ask that the law be declared Illegal
We are not here, your honor" continued
the attorney, ito ask anything extraordi-
nary. We simply want a plain written
statute enforced. Now, our friends come
here and want this statute set aside ON the
affidavits of the officers and employees of
the company interested. There has not
been scintilla of evidence introduced here
from dfsinterested party They think this
should be considered, sufficient to justify the
court to. declare this whole statute abso-
lutely unconstitutional. Who can prevent
Mr. Bryan, this three-fold officer, drawing
three salaries, from coming here and swear
ing that his company cannot furnish the
service at the rate prescribed by law.
In answer to the contention made that
the complainants could not ask for an in
Junction for the reason that their contracts
had been terminated, Mr.. Hemphill said
that the suits were brought before those
contracts expired, before the telephones
had been removed. and, therefore, the COM
plainants had something to be deprived of.
He said the contention that the new rates
apply only to telephones furnished the
District of Columbia is ridiculous. No one
would say that Congress undertook long
and exhaustive investigation into the tele-
phone question to ascertain what the Dis
trict of Columbia should pay for its twenty
five phones. The fact that Congress or
dered this investigation, he said. is con-
elusive proof that the law was intended TO
cover the entire telephone business in the.
District of Columbia. 1t is impossible to
construe the language of the statute as
to make it refer only to what the District
government shall pay for its telephone
service
The Constitutional Question.
Mr. Hemphill said that in cases where a
statute was attacked as unconstitutional
the court always allowed a cross-examina-
ton. which could not be had in this case,
as all the evidence had been adduced in the
form of affidavits.
A discussion arose between Messrs.
HemphilI and Wilson as TO the capitalize
ton, bonded Indebtedness and "watered
stock Justice Hagner declared that this
not to the point
Mr.. Hemphill said there is not a case on
record where the court has refused to en-
force statute on the ex parte statement
Of the people interested. If the injunctions
are granted as asked the complainants are
ready to give bond to pay the company at
their own rates should the law later be de-
clared unconstitutional. If the injunctions
are not granted, then. for the first time in
the history of the United States, statute
must be set aside on the single statement
of the parties interested.
The case closed at 2:45 pm, Justice
Hagner reserving his decision.