The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1900-02-05

Justice Barnard handed down a decision
today that the act Of Congress Of June 30,
1855. regulating telephone charges in the
District Of Columbia is unconstitutional.
and dismissed the proceedings brought
by large number Of the patrons 10 COM
pei the company 70 conform to the law.
The decision is an unequivocaI victory for
the corporation.
The matter was one in which great in
terest was taken by the Washington pub
lie ever since the proceedings to test the
law we're instituted last July. 20 it was not
surprising that Justice Barnard's court
room was crowded today with welI-kuovn
attorneys and business men.
The matter came up for a hearing in the
case Of James F. Manning & Co. against
the Telephone Company. asking ,hat the
Supreme Court Of the District restrain the
defendant from removing it's telephone in
strument and appliances from the COM
plainants' place Of business. because the
complainants refused to pay the rates es-
tablished by the Telephone Company. but
had rendered the rate for the service fixed
by Congress.
Since the filing Of petition for iljunc-
tion by Manning & Co. seyeuty-fve or
one hundred other subscribers commenced
similar proceedings These cases were
consolidated, and testimony was taken on
both sides with the view OF making the
Manning case a test. The result was the
decision today, which follows in full:
~ TIE SUPREME COURT OBJ TIE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
James ?. Manning et al
TIE Caeszusale and P5- T. Equity. No. l9g2s
roua- Telephone Co.
In the act OF Congress approved June 90,
1885, entitled An act making aPpropria-
ri0us 20 provide for the expenses Of the
District Of Columbia. for the fiscal year
ending June 90 1899 and for other pur-
poses" is a clause relating 10 and making
appropriation for Telegraph and telephone
service - Immediately following the enum-
Grafton OF the several specific objects for
which moneys are appropriated I'm this
section Of the act is the following provis-
ION Provided. That after the passage Of
this act it shall be unlawful for any per
son OF any telephone company doing busi-
ness I'm the District Of Columbia TO charge
or receive more than $50 per annum for the
for each telephone, there being not more
than two on wire; $50 for each telephone,
there being not more than three on a wire,
and So for each telephone. there being
four or more on the same wire" go stat
utcs ar Large. 557 516-J
The defendant was the only telephone
company doing business i'm this District on
that date. IL was organized under the in
corporation laws Of the State Of New York,
-rrH Iaa b. .rrr. BE- HH
Maryland and part Of West Virginia since
the year 1888
Il is averred in the third paragraph Of the
bill that the defendant has. with the as
sent and under the direction cf the Con-
gress Of the United States and Of the
Commissioners Of the District Of COlum-
bia. laid and yet maintains in the public
streets. avenues. and alleys Of the city OF
Washington, many miles Of conduit for
the carrying of electric wires. and has
strung many other electric wires over ard
across other public avenues. streets. and
alleys in said city, and yet maintains the
same" etc; that iJ maintains a central
Office OF telephone exchange and that il
is a common carrier Of telephone mes
sages. and is bound in law 20 furnish. set
up. and maintain telephones IN the prem
ises Of all persons in the said city OF
Washington who may request the same
and pay the lawful charges therefor (such
premises being upon or near to the lines
Of service wire established by said COM
pany), and to furnish such persons. their
families. servants, agents, and employees
connection through said telephcne eX-
change with ether telephones. and 10 suf-
fer and permit them TO send and receive
messages over said lines Of wire
The Notification.
It appears that compIainants had q con-
tract with the defendant at the time the
said act was passed. by which it was agreed
that said defendant should furnish the
complainants with a telephone at their Of
fee. at the corner Of Fourteenth and II
Streets. in Washington city, the same be
ing OF the type known as the complete
special metallic circuit for which the sum
Of $14J per year was 10 be paid with dis
count of $3.50 per quarter for prompt pay
ment quarterly, in advance. Two days
after the passage of this act. complainants
notified the defendant that they desired
to terminate their said contract at the ex-
piration OF ten days, as they had a right
10 do under its terms. The defendant ac-
knowledged receiving said notice on the
18th Of July, and, in reply, stated that 10
would remove the telephone and send bill
as requested on the 14th Of July. On the
18th Of July. however complainants again
would retain the telephone in their
office at the rate fixed by the said act,
after termination of their said contract.
and made a tender Of the amount for one
quarter. in advance. This tender being de-
clined by the defendant, the complain
ants thereupon filed their bill in this cause
on July a. 20 eniOin the defendant from
removing the telephone from their Office,
and from disconnecting them from the ex-
change. The defendant answered the bill,
and after hearing had on bill. answer and
af1davits on a rule TO show cause why
the defendant should not be enjoined as
prayed. pendente lite. an injunction was
granted. the cOmplainants being required
10 give the usual bond. and. in the mean
time. 70 pay the rate Of $50 per year for
the use Of said telephone and service. The
parties thereafter proceeded TO take a large
mass of testimony, and the cause now
comes on for final hearing on pleadings
and evidence.
Some Of the questions suggested by the
records and briefs OF counsel are. What
are the equities. If any. as established in
the case, which warrant the court in
| granting an Injunction as prayed under
I the general principles Of equity jurispTu-
| dence? Is said act unconstitutional by
reason OF its provisions being repugnant
to those sections which provide that No
person shall be deprived OF life, liberty.
I or property without due process Of law,
= and Private property shall not be taken
( for public use without Just compensation, =
] and no State shall pass a law impairing
! the obligation Of cOntracts?"
/ The act does not require in words any
! specific cuaIitl or character o. instru-
/ strumeuts. t1-iT~cnt, or sfsvice. but the
4 ~. IL =