Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-06-03
RATES FOR TELEPHONES
OPINION DELIVERED BY JUSTICE
BREWER.
Wherein the Court of Appeals Erred
Failed to Inquire Into Value Of
Service to Be Given.

In delivering the opinion Of the United
States Supreme Court in the case OF Man
ming against the Chesapeake and Potomac
Telephone Company yesterday afternoon.
as stated in the Star. Justice Brewer said.
in part:
while the legislature may prescribe
regulations for the management Of bust
ness of public nature even though carried
on by private corporations with capital
and for private benefit the language of
such regulations will not be broadened by
implication. In other words. there is no
presumption of an intent to interfere with
the management by private corporation
of its property any further than the public
interests require, and no interference
will be adjudged before the clear letter of
the statutes. The prohibition is against
charging or receiving more than $50 per
annum for the use of a telephone on
separate wire What kind of a telephone
service is contemplated and how much
goes with the telephone? 1t appears from
the testimony that there are two kinds of
equipment, one more expensive and one
more reliable than the other. Some of the
companys subscribers are using the cheap
and inferior equipment. Was the statutory
limitation of $50 per annum intended as the
limit for the superior or the inferior equip
ment? 1t also appears from the testimony
customers besides the mere telephone such
additional equipment as wall cabinet, desk
auxiliary bells. ETC., for which separate
charges are made. Doubtless these addi-
tienal appliances facilitate and tend to make
more convenient and easy the business of
telephoning, but they are not included in
the terms of the statute, and all that Is re-
quired by It's language is the furnishing OF
the telephone.
What equipment and appliances are es-
sential and what only matters Of con-
venience may not be clearly shown by the
evidence, but obviously there can be no
/ difficulty in securing proof thereof Sup
pose. for instance. legislature should pre-
scribe the rates for the carriage Of passen-
gers by a railroad. II the language was
limited to mere transportation OF passen-
gers it would not be held to include &C
commodations In a sleeper. although such
sleeper belonged to the company and was
used on Its trains.
Court Of Appeals Erred.
'It may be that Congress legislating sim
ply for the use Of the telephone felt that
the information 1t already possessed was
sufficient to justify 1t in prescribing rea-
sonable charge therefor, at least for the
inferior equipment. and did not wait for q
full investigation in respect to the value
OF the of the best equipment together
with all these auxiliary matters. 1t may
be that if all these matters are taken into
account and within the purview Of the
statute the conclusion Of the trial judge
was right that no reasonable remuneration
was furnished by the rates prescribed
whereas 1t may be that excluding them 1t
will be evident beyond question that the
charges prescribed are reasonable and just
At any rate the decree as directed by the
Court OF Appeals was erroneous and cast
| burden upon the defendant to which ii
was not subjected by the legislation OF
| Congress.
Before closing the opinion one thing
must be referred to. The Court Of Appeals
not entering into any full inquiry as to the
reasOnableness Of the charges held that
Congress had a right to prescribe them
| whether reasonable or unreasonable and
| that If in fact unreasonable and unremun-
| eratfve the only recourse of defendant was
| to retire from its business. This involves
| question OF constitutional law of great
| importance upon which We at present ex-
press no opinion. The future Investigations
may relieve US from any necessity of con-
| Sdering it. At any rate 1t Is we'll to have
| the facts settled before We attempt to de.
| termine the applicable law. The facts
! should be settled by the trial court"
The DEGREES Of the Court Of Appeals and
| the Supreme Court of the District will both
! be reversed and the case remanded to the
Supreme Court of the District with instruc.
| lions to set aside its decree and inquire as
| to the reasonableness Of the rates In the
| light Of the construction the United States
| Supreme Court has given to the statutes
Mr.. Justice Gray and Mr.. Justice Brown
| did not hear the argument and took nc
part in the decision of the case
The Court of Appeals Decision.
| The decision of the court of appeals IN
| the case of Manning agt. the Telephone
| Company required the latter to furnish al
| the rates prescribed by Congress a service
| similar to that which Manning had been re-
| ceiving. which included desk and othe,
| equipment. for which an extra charge wa:
| asked.