Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-05-22

the public authorities to make improve
ments. 1t would seem that considerable
part OF this. but how much is unascertain-
able from the evidence. is due to the i'm
proved conduit system before mentioned
Moreover. the presidents report to stock
holders. under date of January 81, 1898
shows an increase of 1888 poles in the cree
lions for the year.
Coming down to the evidence of expendi-
lures for the first three quarters of the
year 1898, Haskins shows total expenses
for the whole year. estimating the coming
quarter at the same proportion. to amount
to s151,37157, which is less than the ex-
penditures Of 1897
Continuing his system Of charging eX-
penses. he estimates the cost for the year
per telephone-taking =. 126 as the average
number-at, say, $Il-25.
Deducting interest. sinking fund and
rentals as not properly chargeable to eN-
penses, the cost per telephone would be
about Sb3. making expenses exceed income,
at the so rate about $500 for the year.
Appellants contend that this difference
would be more than set off by deducting
from salary charges the travelling expenses
of officers and the unnecessary cost Of ser
vices In general. They would deduct from
the former 81, 1861 ~, and for the latter Sl9,-
24S.31.
This last deduction would embrace the
proportion of general salaries charged to
the Washington plant, which amounts to
s10.91S 40. with a reduction Of, say, 5000
from local expenses as excessive and UNI
reasonable to that extent.
That there should be some deduction on
account of these expenses seems reason
able but what that reduction should be
does not satisfactorily appear from the ev-
idence. Appellee's statement OF the eN-
pense per telephone Of salaries and wages
alone is at the rate OF 1910 per year in
the District of Columbia. This is much
greater than the total expense per tele-
phone in many other places given in the
testimony. For example, Toronto, Canada.
with $500 stations estimates expenses at
So. sc per station; Detroit Mich, 4,63G sta
lions at sHo95 per station. Some smaller
cities none of which. save Grand Rapids,
Mich have more telephones than Wash
ington. range from $3.50 to s24 per station.
Conditions are frequently so different that
the expense of operation in one city does
not furnish a safe rule of comparison for
others Conditions in Washington are pc
culiar in that it's streets and avenues are
much wider than those Of others brought
into comparison, and the average distance
required to reach subscribers is much
greater Besides, conditions of construc-
ton are more onerous in several respects.
Conditions Not Sufficient.
At the same time it does not seem rea-
sonable that these conditions are suf1-
cient to account for the great difference
in expense shown in the several tables Of
charges, particularly those of salaries and
wages per telephone.
| Again, 1t does not appear what proper
| ton of expense is due to the outside con-
| number of what called private lines,
! that do not enter into the general service.
What figure those ought to cut in the cal
| culation of expenses does not plainly APP
pear to US.
AS the Judgment appealed from must be
reversed upon the ground first stated, re
gardless of the fact that the statutory rate
| might be most unjust, We have not made
I'D a particular statement OF all the many
| items entering into that consideration.
If the case turned upon this point We
would have great difficulty I'm determining
| from the mass of figures and opinions in
evidence what particular rate would cover
| legitimate expenses and afford any return
| for the money invested, and would feel
| strong inclination to remand the cause for
the introduction of additional evidence upon
! some of the points Of difficulty that have
been suggested, and with direction for ref
erence to the auditor to find and report all
| of the necessary facts with all necessary
| or important computations and estimates.
| The most that We now feel called upon
| to say is that our examination or the evil
| dence does not satisfy us that the neces-
| sary effect Of the enforcement OF the rate
| will be destructive of defendants rights OF
property.
For the reasons given the decree will
be reversed, with costs, and the cause re-
manded for the entry OF a decree granting
the injunction in conformity with this
opinion.
Reversed.
The opinion was signed by Seth Shep-
ard, associate justice, and a foot note
states that Chief Justice Alvey concurs in
the judgment.
Endorsed: No 1908 J. Forrest Manning
and Harry Rupprecht, trading as ]. For
rest Manning Co, against the Chesa-
Opinion of the court per Mr.. Justice Shep-
ard, Court of Appeals of the District Of
Columbia. Filed May u. 1901.
ROBERT WILLETT, Clerk.