The evening times., 1900-02-05

|
its work tother matters being also referred
to it,. The House adjourned. however, Oh
July s, without taking action on this re
| quest.
On February %, 1898, the Senate au'
thoriZea its Committee on the District o
| Columbia to investigate as to telephone
| service in the District, substantially as the
| House Committee had been authorized tC
! do, and to report It's conclusions as early
| as practicable. On March 2, this commit
| tee was authorized to sit during the ses-
sions of the Senate. By a subcommittee
/ thereof, 1t began preparation for such in
I Vestlgatlon by requesting Mr.. Charles w
! Haskins, an expert accountant (who is one
/ OF the witnesses examined in this case) &C
] examine the books of the defendant cor
| poration, which he started to do but be-
] fore he could make such examination, the
| Senate had passed the, said provision: and
on the same day 1t passed, March g. on
motion Of the chairman, the said commit
( tee was discharged from the further in
vestigation of the subject.
BY reason of these admitted facts, the
act is characterized by counsel as being
/ hasty and ill-considered legislation, tackled
on to an appropriation bill while under
consideration in the House, and passed in
/ both Houses without the benefit Of any
recommendation and report from any COM
, mittee and against the advice of the SEN
ate committee, the only one giving the
subject any investigation prior to its pas
sage. 1t is also claimed that the legisla-
tion should not have been enacted without
first hearing the defendant company as to
the facts pertaining to its said business
for otherwise it would seem to be unfair
and arbitrary. 1t is also objected TO be-
cause it selects only one reason among
many why there should be different maxi
mum rates for telephone service at any
given place, namely the face of one or
more telephones on the same wire.
Among many other reasons than the one
stated, which would seem to suggest a diff
ference in prices for telephones. are these,
namely. the comparative distance from
the central office or trunk lines, the style
and finish of instruments and equipments,
the kind of circuit used, grounded or me-
tallic; the kind of wire, steel, iron. or cop
per; the comparative number of calls sent
and received. the place where the tele
phone is located, in business houses or
residences, the quality and efficiency of
the service rendered. whether by means OF
one multiple switchboard or a divided
switchboard, a single central office or sew
eral sub stations, by overhead wires or
underground wires and the time in which
the service is rendered whether all day
and all night. or only during certain hours
in the day or night.
The Questions Involved.
While exact justice would require that
the individual should only pay for what
he receives, and that the party furnishing
service should receive only fair and just
compensation for what he furnishes. and
that neither should give something for
Ys-s hs~ rt-b-
lump sum charged for unlimited service
for a given time may be substantially just
and amount TO proper compensation; and
so | should hold that none of these OBJ
iections to this Law is sufficient 10 war
rant the court in holding it invalid.
The form given it. its place on the ap-
preparation bill. its passage with or with
out previous investigation and recon-
mendation of committees. its single reason
and basis for determining different maxi
mum rates are all matters for the iudg-
ment and discretion of the legislative body
and will not render the act void as being
repugnant 10 the Constitution. They are
matters of form rather than Of Substance:
and. notwithstanding they may be IegsIa-
tive imperfections. they will not render the
act invalid II the result. however is that
the rates so fixed are so unreasonably low
as TO prevent the company conducting the
business from receiving such compensation
as. under all the circumstances will be just
to il and to the public the act will be un-
constitutional under the Fifth and Four
teenth Amendments.
The controlling question in the case,
then. is this. Does this act prescribe rates
which will enable the defendant TO receive
a reasonable reward for the skill labor
and property required of it in the proper
coriuct of its said business?
The courts have decided what classes
Of facts and circumstances are properly
to be conside red in determining questions
of this character and some of these will
be here stated. In Smyth VS.. Ames 16q
L. S. 546 the Supreme Court. speaking OF
the rates fixed by a Commission appointed
under an act OF the Legislature OF Nebras-
ka to regulate the charges to be made by
railroad companies. used this language
We hold. however, that the basis OF all
calculations as to the reasonableness OF
rates to be charged by corporation main
tanning a highway under Legislative sane
tions must be the fair value of the prop
erty being used by it for the convenience
of the public; and. in order to ascertain
that value. the original cost of c0nstruc-
ton. the amount expended in permanent
improvements the amount and market
value of its bonds and stock the present
as compared with the original cost of con-
structiOn. the probable earning capacity of
the property under particular rates pre-
scribed by statute. and the sum required
to meet operating expenses, are all mat
ters for consideration, and are to be given
such weight as may be just and right i'll
each case
The same court had previously said. in
speaking of a turnpike company:
Each case must depend upon its Spe-
cial facts, and when a court without as
suming itself to prescribe rates. is re-
quired to determine whether the rates
prescribed by the Legislature for a corpo-
ration controlling a public highway are as
an entirety so unjust as to destroy the
value Of its property for all the purposes
for which il was acquired, its duty is to
take into consideration the interests both |
of the public and of the owner of the
together with all other circum-
stances that are fairly to be considered
in determining whether the Legislature |
has. under the guise of regulating rates,
exceeded its constitutional authority, and |
practically deprived the owner of property |
without due process of law" (Covington |
and Lexington Turnpike Road Company
VS. Sanford. 164 L. S, 596D
Authorities Cited.
In the latest reported case in which this |
subject has been considered by the Su- /
preme Court (San Diega Land Company VS..
National City, ia L. s., 757), the follow |
ing contention of appellant is approved
"The court should take into considera-
ton the cost OF its plant. the cost per |
annum of operating the plant, including |
interest paia on money borrowed and Iel-
sonably necessary 10 be used in construct |
ing the same, the annual depreciation of |
the plant from natural causes resulting |
from its use. and fair profit to the com- |