Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-06-02
SENT BACK FOR TRIAL
Telephone Cases in the Su-
preme Court.
A POINT TO BE SETTLED
WHAT KIND OF SERVICE CON-
GRESS HAD IN VIEW.
The Law in the Case-Mr. Justice
White Delivers Opinion of Dis
senting Justices.

ndnQed down a decision In the telephone
case, involving telephone rates in the Dis
trict, the result of which will be a new
trial on an issue raised by the court. so
that in all probability the case will again
be before the United States Supreme Court
at the end of another four years. The de-
cision Of the court was rendered by Mr..
Justice Brewer. 1t remands the case to the
trial court, the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia, with instructions that
new trial be granted and the testimony be
taken to determine a question raised by the
Supreme Court of the United States
This question is in relation to what kind
of service it was intended by Congress
should be granted to subscribers in the
District of Columbia for the charges fixed
by congressional legislation.
The decision itself does not go into any
other question concerning the telephone
case. 1t does not express an opinion wheth-
er or not these charges as fixed by Con-
gress would in effect be confiscatory of the
property of the telephone company.
1t instructs the trial court to determine
the kind of service Congress intended
should be given to subscribers because, as
stated by Mr.. Justice Brewer in delivering
the opinion, there are several kinds of teie-
phone service. In order to determine TO
the reasonableness of the charges, it is
considered necessary to know what kind
given to subscribers.
Dissenting Views.
Mr.. Justice White dissented from this
opinion, Mr.. Justice Harlan and Mr.. JUS
tice Mckenna joining him. Mr.. Justice
White in commenting on the decision of the
court said that the result of this would
be that the case opened for a new trial
would drag its weary length through the
same length of time probably that had been
consumed in getting the present case to
the Supreme Court of the United States.
He recalled that this case of Manning
against the Chesapeake and Potomac Tele-
phone Company was brought in 1898. He
said that because there were different kinds
of telephone service, some being given by
instruments placed on the desk, others by
instruments on the wall with various de-
grees of difference, the court had directed
that the trial court determine the facts
Is to what kind of service Congress had de-
teTmned should be given to the people of
the District of Columbia for the prices
stipulated in the act of Congress.
We considered it reasonable to suppose
that what was intended by this act of Con-
gress was customary and reasonab BILE
service.
He recalled the fact that the telephone
company is operating in the District of Co
lumbia by mere license. and that in giving
1t a license to do telephone business here
Congress had stipulated clearly that the
right was reserved to exclude it from the
streets of the city at any time without COM
pensation. If, according to his opinion, Con-
gresS should see fit to declare that the tele-
phone company should give service to
subscribers in the District without making
any charge whatever such declaration
would be no more than an assertion of Con-
greSS to exclude the company from the use
of the streets.
He referred to the result that would be
met with after the telephone case should
again drag it's weary length through the
lD,,r ol,o rPi
again to the United States Supreme Court
for judgment several years hence, and the
law should be a that time upheld The re-
suit would be that the people of this city
would have in the meantime been obliged
to pay the old rates and have no advantage
of the cheaper rates established by an act
of Congress.
The Act Of Congress Involved.
The act of Congress prescribing the rate
for telephone use in the District, involved
in the courts decision. was approved June
80, 1898. The act itself was the District ap
preparation bill of that year, the telephone
provision having been adopted by the
House of Representatives in the form of
rider" added to the provision for the main
tenance of the telegraph and telephone
service of the District government.
This paragraph was follows:
"Provlded, that from and after the pas
sage of this act it shall be unlawful for
any person or any telephone company doing
business in the District of Columbia to
charge or receive more than $50 per annum
for the use of a telephone on separate
wire; $40 for each telephone, there being
not more than two on wire; $50 for each
telephone, there being not more than three
on wire, and $25 for each telephone, there
being four more on the same wire
The Supreme Court of the District Of Co.
lumbia held this act to be unconstitutional,
but the Court If Appeals reversed that de-
cision. sustaining the validity of the act.
The opinion today remanded the case to
the Supreme Court Of the District for an
other trial.