The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-02-06


underground wires, and the time in which
D the service is rendered, whether all day
! and all night, or only during certain hours
, in the day or night.
While exact justice would REQUIRE tina
tn. 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
nothing. still there are cases where a
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
jections TO this law is sufficient to war
rant the court in holding Il invalid"
The Question of Income
THE maximum rates fixed by this act, IL
they had been put in operation on July l,
1886, and made applicable, to all the differ
ent telephones then operated by the defend
ant in this District, would have produced
an income in round figures at rate of a
little less than 100000 per year. The
average number OF telephones in use for
the nine months ending September 80. 1898.
was 2,l26, some one on wire and some
Two or more on the same wire; and the
different rates for these would make the
average rate about s47 per telephone.
The evidence Of Mr.. Haskins shows, be-
! yond question. that the income realized by
the defendant from its previous rates, as
per contracts. was, in round figures, at the
| rate OF little less than 100000 per year.
THE average rate of earnings per sub
| scriber during the six years prior 10
1898 was about 500; SO that it APP
| pears that the income derived from the
contracts of the defendant with its sub
scribers was at least 100 per cent greiter
I than the income which would be derived
! from the rates fixed by the statute, reckon
! ing on the basis of an equal number of
! subscribers of the same classes.
ut is claimed, by counsel for complain
! ants, that much larger number of sub
scribers would at once be procured IL the
defendant should observe the statute rates,
| and that correspondngly greater profits
would follow While Il is quite probable
! that an increase of subscribers might be
the result of the lower rates, yet it is by
no means certain that such would be the
case
The Testimony Adduced.
In the preparation TO submit the case
TO the court for final decision great vol
ume of testimony was taken. That offered
by the compliments was gathered in diff
ferent large cities throughout the United
States and Canada and tended to show
that in nearly all the places where EVIL
dence was taken the telephone plants we're
conducted at great deal less expense |
than in the District, and that. generally. |
the service was as good as that furnished |
by the defendant in this city. In discuss |
ing this, phase of the case, Justice Bar |
nard said:
In the places where the cheaper tele-
phone service is had. the cost of con-
struction and maintenance is usually less |
than il is possible for 1t 10 be in this Dis
trict In some places II is almost wholly
aerial construction, with prohibition /
against erecting poles or stretching wires
across streets and alleys, or attaching
them to house-tops, as appears TO be the
case In some of the European cities; and
In some of these cities. companies are al
lowed TO stretch their cables through the
sewers, without the expense of laying con-
duits in streets. In many other cities,
however. the rates for telephone service
are higher than those in vogue in this Dis
trict. In Grand Rapids, Mich, and per-
haps some other cities where testimony
was taken, there were rival companies,
causing competition. and where 1t was
shown that nearly every subscriber had
two telephones, one belonging to each
company. The result in such case Is neces-
sarily more inconvenient. confusing. aud
expensive than to have only one com
pany"
In reference 10 the constitutionality Of
the law in question the court stated:
No person has right 10 compel another
person to furnish him telephone service
or other service or property 1T less than
its cost. and Congress has no power to
pass law which must necessarily have
that effect. M doubt Congress can by a !
proper law. that will be unobjectionable
on constitutional grounds regulate the
rates to be charged by the defendant: and I
he Court need not consider whether the
charges heretofore made by the defendant
and agreed to by the subscribers were
higher than they ought to have been, to
be fair and Just to the public.
These questions are not raised for judi
,ial opinion. The Court has no power to fix
-ates. That is for Congress, or the con- {
racing parties, to do; and il is not for the 7
'ourt 10 impose terms on the defendant on /,
which 1t can continue TO do business here :
Tor TO criticise its lawful contracts. it's !
ole duty being to decide from the evidence, ,
guided by the principles of law. as laid =
Town by the Supreme Court, and directly h
binding ON this Court, so far as the same /,
ire applicable to this case. whether or not
he rates fixed by the said act are reason i
bile unreasonable.
1T would be also a misfortune to have
NO or more companies doing a general =
telephone business here. II would not only =
equire two more telephones in each
ubscriber's office, where 1t was necessary
or him to talk with the city generally. :,
nut the construction OF conduits and lines
would keep the streets torn up, and in
Convenience the public much more than TO
ave the lines all in the control of enc q
u
Without stating further reasons. or max
lg deductions from the volumnous testi-
nony on other points. ] am clearly of the II
pinon that this provision OF the said act II
unconstitutional, by reason OF the fact n
hat the rates fixed thereby are unreason- Il
bly, low for the service and supplies to n
'hich IL must be considered they refer; OF
nd. ON the whole case. | must. therefore. X
ecide that the Injunction pendente lite ii
hould be dissolved, and the bill dis B
Kissed" p,
The bryan Indictment. m
Some time after the petitions for in
motion were filed against the Chesapeake
nd Potomac Telephone Company an in
ictment was returned by the grand jury II
gainst Samuel NJ. Bryan. then president sc
The company. charging him with re- te
Giving more money than the law allowed hi
IT the use of the company's instruments. ~
IT. Bryan furnished bail. and no action ~
as taken since then in the matter. ~
In the suits for injunction the subscrb- ~
rs were represented by Messrs. Binney "
Woodward and Hemphill & Peter, ID
nd the telephone company by Jere VI. D.,
Wilson. A. A. Hoeline. and Messrs. .'
Head Fia!ley. ~
An Appeal Prol,nbf~. ~
II is quite probable that the comnlain- 10
nts will take an appeal from the decis- III
N OF Justice Barnard to the Court of IN
ppeals for the District. In the event ri
lat that tribunal afiirms the decision of II
lie lower court an appeal will be taken to VI