The Washington times. (Washington [D.C.]) 1901-1902, 1902-03-02
Argument Tomorrow in the
Cases Now Before the
Supreme Court.
HOLD LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Maintain Congress Is Without Authority
to Regulate Price for Service-JuGg-
ment in Favor of Corporation Was
Rendered by Court of Appeals.

Supreme Court OF the United States to-
morrow. The result of this litigation is
most important to the people of Wash
ington. Probably more interest has been
taken in it throughout It's 4. course
than any other matter which has been
before the local courts for many years.
The litigation was begun during the
summer of 1899 by James r. Manning.
who sought by injunction of the Supreme
Court of the District to prevent the
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Com
pany from removing its telephone instru
ments and apparatus from his premises
because he refused to pay a higher rate FOR
telephone service than is prescribed by
the act of Congress of June 80, 1885.
To Obey Congress
In brief. the litigation is for the pur-
pose of compelling the Chesapeake and
Potomac Telephone Company to comply
with the act of Congress referred to,
which regulates the price for telephone
service in the District at rates varying
from $50 to $50 per annum.
Soon after Mr.. Manning filed his petit
ton for injunction, large number of
other patrons of the Chesapeake and Po-
tomac Telephone Company followed suit.
SO that when the matter came up for
hearing before Justice Barnard, presid-
ing in Equity Division No. 9 of the ST.
preme Court Of the District, nearly 100
subscribers had filed similar petitions.
The petitioners were represented by At
torneys A. A. Birney. Henry F. Woodland.
J. j. Hemphill, Arthur Peter. and others:
the telephone company by Messrs Wilson
and Hochling and Worthington, Head G.
Frailey. AS defence the company con-
sended that the act regulating the rate
chargeable for telephone service is IN
constitutional. and virtually meant a con-
fscation OF their property rights.
Testimony Taken.
Testimony relative to the question at
issue was taken in different cities
throughout the United States and Canada.
and thousands of typewriter pages were
read to the court. The reading of the
testimony alone occupied the attention of
the court for three weeks
After argument by counsel on either
side Justice Barnard took the matter un-
der adyisement, and later announced his
decision, declaring the act OF Congress
prescribing the telephone rates for the
District to be unconstitutional From
this decision Mr.. Manning and the other
petitioners took appeal to the Court
of Appeals for the District.
There again the case was argued, the
same counsel appearing for the different
ltigants.
Courts Verdict Reversed.
The Court of Appeals in an opinion de-
Iivered by Justice Alvey reversed the
judgment Of the Supreme Court CT the
District. From this decision the tele-
phone company took an appeal 10 the Su-
preme Court of the United States
In the brief filed by the subscribers II
is stated:
Had Congress chartered this company,
and reserved las in the cases of street
railway, gas and electric light COM
panies) the right Of: repeal of such char
ter, there could be no doubt of its right to
terminate all powers of the company
compel ii to remove its conduits. cables.
wires, and poles from the public ways, and
thereby destroy its business and convert
It's corporeal property into old junk Be
cause the company has no contract, but
only bare permission to pursue its bust
ness. does II stand in better position to
deny TO Congress the power of control?
Is the reserve power which Congress
would have had il authorized the com
pany's operations nonresident because
ii has permitted them?
Questions Legal Right.
Would not Congress now have the legal
right by direct legislation to exclude this
foreign corporation from doing business
in this District? If yes. then even though
the untrue contention that this act of
general legislation will Indirectly effect
the same result be established, how may
II be claimed That the statute is void?
1t was contended for the company in
the courts below that the legislation in
question impairs the obligation of con-
tracts between the telephone company
end its subscribers (the contract rates
being in excess OF the statute rates.. and
is therefore void.
THAT is 10 say. because d public SER
vice corporation has been sufficiently as
1ute 10 make contracts for a term o.
years. until that term shall pass the
hands Of Congress are tied, and its power
10 pass the public laws upon the subject
IS gone To state the proposition is to
condemn it,
History of Washington Plant.
The first telephone exchange in Wash |
.ng;pn was established by George c. May
nL-3 and William II. Barnard, in Janu-
az. 1879, under the name of the National
Telephone Exchange.
This continued until December l. the /
same year, when 1t was succeeded by the .
National Capital Telephone Company. q
corporation which. in August. 1888. was |
succeeded by the Chesapeake and Potomac 4
Telephone Company. the defendant to this I
suit. The assets conveyed TO the present 4
company were: Cash. $79,60l 10; accounts 1
receivable, S9,i2s22; supplies, s3,6ls-24; I
stock National Fair Association. 800.
Total 1872 44S.2j; less accounts payable, /
l5.1l3.32; net cash assets, S77 .S34.93; cost 4
Of actual construction, S9l,i30.2L Total, I
SlGS 1914
For this the company delivered stock .
10 the amount Of $4,000. its total capital Z
stock being 81 $50 coo.
AT the same time the Chesapeake and .
Potomac Telephone Company acquired all .
the rights OF the Telephone Exchange 1
Company, a West Virginia corporation, (
then operating in Maryland. The consid-
GRAFTON was sl.900.0C0 of the capital stock .
OF the Chesapeake and Potomac Company. I
Money to Trustees.
"of this stock 5000. 900 was delivered to
the National Bell Telephone Company and (
81 .270, 900 to the Telephone Exchange
Company OF this last amount 100000 /
was to be passed TO trustees for the use
Of the Chesareakc and Potomac Telephone
Company. and subsequently $4,000 there
of was assigned to the National Dell Tel
eohore Company and the remainder, $751;