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

Potomac Telephone Company, and subse-
quently $62 GOO thereof was assigned to
the National Bell Company aforesaid and
$37, 400 sold in the market for the sum Of
$S4, 1861. n.
received by the Chesapeake and Potomac
Telephone enao c Con under hsse convey
bills receivable and supplies, s77,::3s 90:
465.14
From the Telephone Exchange Company
cash, bills receivable andasupplies. s45-
045.24. Plant valued at 100000. Total,
The difference between theface value Of
the stock-s75O, OO0-delivered to the Nation
al Capital Company and the actual value
Of the property received-S16S. 465. 1Lis
represented solely by the valuation of the
franchises Of the latter company at $751;
5246 60.
The difference between the face value of
the stock-S1 800, 000-delivered to the Tele-
phone Exchange Company and the actual
value of the property received therefrom-
$40 o45-24-is represented solely by the
franchises of the latter company, eStimat-
ed, 81 ,554, 954. rs.
The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone
Company, after taking over the property
and franchises of the other corporations,
began to carry on the business in the Dis
trict of Columbia, throughout Maryland
and a small part of West. Virginia. In
conducting this business it has charged 40
per cent Of it's general office expenses
against the plant operated in the District,
where it's general Office is kept. Since 1891
it has issued and sold 100000 of per
cent bonds, two-fifths of which are also
charged against the District plant.
without Authority From Congress.
Congress has passed no act Incorporating
the defendant. or giving 1t license to carry
on its business in the District Of Columbia
The only recognition that it claims is to
be found in certain items and clauses OF
appropriation bills, beginning with that of
July, 1888. In that act it was provided,
vice. that the Commissioners of the Dis
trict might authorize the wires of any 'ex-
listing telegraph, telephone or electric light
company operating in the District of
Columbia to be laid under the streets,
alleys, ETC., wherever in their judgment
the public interest may require the exer-
else of such authority-such privileges as
may be granted hereunder to be revokable
at the win of Congress without compen-
sation." % Stat, 1913, 324.
An item continuing this authority for
another term of Congress under the same
condition was contained in the act of March
2, 1889. Idem, SOL
The act of August T. 1894, authorized the
creation and use of telephone poles in the
public alleys, but the privilege was made
subject to revocation at the will of Con-
SreSS without COInpeUSdlloIi 20 otdl, -oO
The act of March 3. 1897, provided that
hereafter no wire shall be strung on any
alley pole at a height of less than fifty
feet from the ground at the point of at
tachment to said pole; and it was declared
that nothing herein contained shall au-
thoriZe the erection of any additional pole
upon any street, avenue or reservation.
The usual condition of revocation at will
without compensation was again added. %
Stat. 67S.
Appropriation bills subsequent to that
containing the clause regulating charges
merely appropriate money to pay defend
ants accounts for services rendered. 80
Stat, III. Idem, 126.
Proceedings I'm Lower Court.
t. No objection was taken to the bill in
the court below for want Of jurisdiction,
and all the suits depending upon this, save
one were brought upon the assumption
that the appropriate remedy was through
appeal to the restraining power of court
of equity. 1t seems that one party, similar
ly situated. did file petition for a writ Of
manda mus, which was denied.
1t is true that the learned justice who
presided at the hearing Of this cause ex-
pressed the opinion that the proper remedy
was by mandamus, but he did not dismiss
the bill that ground. He proceeded to
consider the case on it's merits, and dis
solved the injunction and dismissed the bill
because he found the rates imposed by the
statute to be unreasonably and oppressive
ly low.
Notwithstanding that expression Of opin-
ion the appellee has declined to raise the
question of jurisdiction on this appeal by
suggestion even and has confined itself to
the main question. The case has been de-
pending since July IA, 1898, and the par
ties have incurred great expense in taking
a mass Of testimony that covers about
/ 100 pages of the printed record.
Taking all of this into consideration, as
well as the technical character and limit
ed scope Of the action Of mandamus, we
are not inclined to raise the question Of
jurisdiction of our own motion, notwith-
standing might find, upon considera-
ton, that there is an adequate and COM
plete remedy at law for the right sought to
be enforced.
g In respect Of the nature Of it's use
there would seem to be ground for dis
tinction between the business Of a tele-
phone exchange and that of a telegraph or
transportation company. 1t likewise serves
and promotes the public interest, and.
moreover, occupies and makes use Of the
public streets and highways by the ex-
press or implied permission of the state
The regulation of callngs affected with
| public interest including charges for serv
| ices rendered, is undoubted function of
| the Legislative department. and the courts
| have no right to inquire into the amount of
information possessed >by the legislative
| department or to pass judgment upon the
motives that may have prompted the exer-
| else of it's powers. Consequently we must
! pass Dy as irrelevant lIle argument Oh De-
| half of the appellee, founded on the jour-
| nails of Congress and proceedings Of COM
| mittees of investigation, to the effect that
| the regulation in question was hastily
adopted as rider upon a general appro-
priation bill, without notice to or hearing
! Of the defendant, without knowledge of
| the conditions of it's service and in disre-
| gard Of its interests and rights.
Power of Regulation.
The exercise of the power Of regulation
was not dependent upon notice and hearing
and we are bound to presume that Congress
acted with due knowledge and fair consid-
Grafton Of all the facts and circumstances
Of the situation which it undertook to eff
feet.
g. On the other hand, it is equally well
settled that, while the legislative power
is inherent and its exercise a matter OF
wide discretion in respect Of the regulation
of the conduct and charges Of business
affected with public interest, the one is
not paramount and exclusive, and the other
is not so conclusive to preclude judi
cial inquiry into the effect of a given regu.
lation upon the substantial rights Of prop
erty Of the persons affected.
The courts will make this inquiry an6