The Washington times., 1902-06-08
Litigation Between Sub
sCribers and Company
Reaches Thousands.
THE END NOT YET IN SIGHT
Recent Decision of United States ST.
preme Court Remanding Case to Dis
trict Tribunal Will Make Another
Large Addition to Expense.

LdIRe " LAptHSG.
There has not been any case tried in
the local courts in recent years in the
result of which the general public is so
deeply interested as what is known as
the telephone case. in which the deci-
sion was adverse to the patrons OF the
telephone company. There is no doubt
that each subscriber to the telephone
service of the Chesapeake and Potomac
Telephone Company, whether directly
interested or not in the outcome of the
litigation, watched closely the proceed
ings through all its different phases.
Still, it is safe to say that there are
very few of them who have stopped to
consider the cost of the proceedings TO
both parties to the suit. In round figures
it is conservatively estimated that the
cost of the proceedings up to the present
time is very nearly $1,000. exclusive OF
the fees of seven attorneys engaged on
either side. If the fees of counsel be
estimated at the extremely low figure OF
$1,000 each for the four years they
have been engaged in the litigation. it
will foot up $4,000. making the aggre-
gate up to date about $64. 600
Litigation Began in 1898.
While the litigation was begun in
July, 1898. the DEGREES of the District
courts were made in 1901, and the case
may be properly regarded as one of the
most important of that year. On July
Il, 1901, James Forrest Manning and
Henry f. Rupprecht began proceedings
against the Chesapeake and Potomac
Telephone Company TO compel 1t to COM
ply with the act of Congress June 30
1898, fixing the rates for telephone
services in the District From that date
TO the present. the telephone subscribers
and the company have been at great ex-
pense carrying on the litigation. So far
as the Supreme Court of the District.
where the proceedings were begun, is
concerned. the cost is very small, the
clerks costs amounting 10 only S25g5
After that stage was passed. however
the cost of litigation commenced piling
up in hundreds and thousands OF dollars
Before the matter reached a hearing be-
fere one OF the justices OF the Supreme
Court OF the District, on its merits
nearly $1,000 was expended in taking
testimony, to say nothing of the cost of
securing it-tlat is. the expense of
counsel going from one city to another
in different parts OF the United States
and Canada TO conduct the examination
OF the witnesses
Against the Patrons.
The decision of the Supreme Court of
District was against the patrons of the
telephone company. and they took an
appeal to the Court of Appeals of the
District. Here additional expense was
to be met and paid. All the testimony.
or at least a great part of it. had to be
printed and submitted in brief TO the
higher court The printing OF the tes-
timony, it is estimated, cost about
Sl.000. or a little more. Besides this
there was the costs of the Clerk of the
Court OF Appeals, which amounted to
sl2750.
The Court of Appeals reversed the
lower court and sustained the position
taken by the subscribers From this
decision the telephone company took an
appeal TO the Supreme Court of the
United States. This incurred an addi
tional expense of reprinting of the
record OF the case used in the Court of
Appeals together with some additions.
at a cost of about 81 100 Upon reaching
the Supreme Court of the United States
with the record the litigants were con-
fronted with still other fees. which
must be paid before the matter would
be docketed. This was the cost OF the
clerk for revising the record. which
amounted TO about $3.50.
In addition TO the ordinary testimony
taken in connection with the proceed
ings. there was that OF telephone ex-
perts and expert accountants. all of
whom were paid handsomely. 1t is es-
timated that this kind of evidence alone
cost about $1,000. Then there was as
much or more paid as travelling ex-
penses for the four attorneys, two rep |
resenting either side who went from /
city 10 city conducting the taking of tes- |
timony. An item OF no small consider |
alton was the typewriters and stenogra- |
piers and examiners fees, which |
amounted to more than $1,000.
Attorneys in the Case.
The attorneys who took an active part
IN the trial of the case are A s. Worth /
ington. John w. Griggs. John HeaId. |
Charles s. FraiIey, A. A. Hoehling. and
f. W. Nandyke, representing the Chesa- |
peake and Potomac Telephone Company. |
and Arthur A. Birney. Henry F. Wood |
ard, John j. HemDhill. and Arthur Peter. |
the telephone subscribers.
The late Judge jeremiah VI. Wilson. |
the attorney for the telephone company. |
took an active part in the proceedings |
during the early stages. but died before |
the case came to final hearing before |
the District courts.
The litigation is not yet at an end |
The United States Supreme Court in a |
decision handed down few days ago re-
versed the Court OF Appeals for the
District on some minor matters in con-
nection with the trial and remanded the |
ease for rehearing before the Supreme
Court Of the District. The higher court
also directed that further testimony
should be taken in relation to the kind |
o. telephone instrument. the use of
whieh is in dispute.
What has been considered the all-im-
lortant point in issue, the constitutional
ty OF the act of Congress fixing the
rates for telephone service in the Dis