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


It's work (other matters being also referred
to IT'D. The House adjourned. however OF
July s, without taking action on this re-
quest.
On February 2s. 1898. the Senate au-
lhoriZea its Committee on the District o
columbia to investigate as TO telephone
/ service in the District, substantially as the
House Committee had been authorized q
do, ana to report It's conclusions as early
as practicable. On March 2. this commit
tee was authorized TO sit during the ses-
slons OF the Senate. By a subcommittee
tnereof, II began preparation for such in
Fesugation by requesting Mr.. Charles W
Hasklns, an expert accountant (who is one
OF the witnesses examined in this easel 20
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 IL 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 ili-considered legislation, tackled
on to an apprO Ration bill while under
consideration in be 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 II Is also claimed that the legisla-
tion should not b. fe been enacted without
hrst hearing the defendant company as to
the facts pertaining TO its said business,
for otherwise IL would seem to be unfair
and arbitrary. It is also objected be-
cause IL 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 90 J-
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 divided
switchboard, a single central Office OF sew
eral sub-stations. By overhead wires or
underground wires. and the time in which
the service is rendered. whether all day
and an night. or only during certain hours
in the day or night.
The Questions Involved.
While exact justice would require that
the individual should only paw for what
he receives. and that the party furuis hing
service should receive only fair and Just
compensation for what he furnishes. and
that neither should give something for
nothing. sin there are cases where 2
lump sum charged for unlimited service
fer given time may be- substantially just
and amount 10 proper compensation. and
so I should hold that none OF these OBJ
Iections 10 this law is sufficient 10 war
rant the court in holding fl invalid.
The form given Il. its place on the aD-
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 viii 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 IsgisIa-
tive imperfections. they viii not render the
act invalid. II the result. however is that
tine rates so Fixed are so unrsasonabIy low
as 70 prevent the company conducting the
business from receiving such compensation
as. under all the circumstances. VIII De just
TO il and TO the public the act viii be- uu-
constitutional under the Fifth and -Four
tsenth Amendments.
The controlling question in the case.
then, rs this Does this act prescribe rates
which viii enable the defendant 10 receive
a reasonable reward for the skill labor
and property required OF IL in the proper
conduct OF its said business
The courts have decided what classes
q F Hssfr- b.
to be conside red IN determining questions
Of this character and some Of these viii
be here stated. In Smyth VS. Am-e. l69
l. $ $40 the supreme Court. speaking OF
the rates fixed by Commission appointed
under an act OF the Legislature Of Nebras-
&a TO regulate the charges 10 be made by
railroad companies, used this language:
We hold, however. that the basis Of all
calculations as To the reasOnableness Of
rates 10 be charged by a corporation main
tanning a highway under legislative sane
lions. 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
70 meet operating expenses. are all mat
ters for consideration. and are to be given
such weight as may be just and right IA
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
nnirad IN dafa-rnSna nh. ~
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
property. 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
rs Sanford, I64 L. s. 596D
Authorities Cited.
In the latest reported case in which this
subject HIS been considered BY the Su-
preme Court Csau 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 Der
annum of operating the plant, including
interest paiO on money borrowed and lea
sonabIy 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