Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-10-30
THE TELEPHONE CASE
JUDGE BARNARD RENDERS 1
FURTHER OPINION TODAY.
Kind of Telephones and Equipment
Considerable Meaning of
Congress.

Justice Barnard of the District Supreme
Court this afternoon rendered an opinion in
the case of j. Forrest Manning and others
against the Chesapeake and Potomac Tele-
phone Company. popularity known as the
local telephone injunction case.
The cause was remanded by the Court of
Appeals. in compliance with the mandate OF
the Supreme Court of the United States,
with directions to the District Supreme
Court to set aside its former decree dis
missing the bill. and to inquire as to the
reasona blenesS % the rates established by
the act of Congress of June 80, 1898, lin
the light of the construction given by the
Supreme Court of the United States to The
statute"
Justice Barnard says that the court must,
in order to comply with the mandate and
ascertain the reasona bleness of the rates,
in the light of the construction given by
the Supreme Court of the United States
to the act, proceed with the inquiry as If
the act had been expressly and specifically
made to apply only to the ordinary. ground
ed circuit. Blake transmitter one-call bat
terry telephone and equipment, with the
usual and ordinary service for local COM
municatiOn.
The opinion is concluded as follows:
The parties have leave to apply for an
order to take further evidence; and the
court will hear such application before pro-
for the stipulation and consent order here
in the court would be compelled to sign
a decree Diminishing the bill in this case.
because the compliments contract relates
to a class of telephones, equipment and
service not within the provisions of said
act
History of the Case.
1t will be recalled that by decree of May
10, 1903, the former decree of Justice Bar
ard he ed
set aside, and by an order passed May 1.
1909, which was consented to by both par
ties it was provided that the case be re-
ferred to an examiner for the purpose of
taking further evidence as to what classes
Of telephones telephone equipment and tel
ephone service were intended by Congress
to be covered by the paragraph of the act of
June 3d. 1888 fixing rates; and that when
such eviderCe was taken a further hearing
in the first instance was to be had to aScer-
tain what classes of telephones, telephone
equipment and telephone service were in
tended by Congress to be covered by said
para era phi of saiG act and that when the
court shall nave determined that the parties
to have leave to apply for an order au-
thoriZing the taking of further evidence as
to the reasonableneSS of the rates nxed by
the act, applied to the classes of tele-
phones. telephone equipment and telephone
service to which the court snaH nave de-
termined the act applies; and also further
evidence as to the occupancy of streets.
erection of overhead lines, construction OF
underground plant etc.
Meaning of Congress.
Evidence was taken under this order of
reference as to the classes of telephones
etc. as provided. and the cause was heard
upon that issue alone. The court was then
asked to determine. as preliminary mat
ter, what kind of telephones, equipment
and service was meant by Congress in the
act establishing rates to be charged
This question, says Justice Barnard, is to
be answered from all the evidence now IN
the case and in the light of the censtruc-
ton given to the act by the Supreme Court
of the United States in its opinion de-
livered by Mr.. Justice Brewer. This latter
opinion, according to Justice Barnard.
leaves practically only one question for the
determination of the District Supreme Court
at this time, and that Is: was 1t the IN
tention of Congress to fix the rate to be
charged under the act for the less expensive
and Inferior equipment or for the more ex-
pensive and more reliable equipment?
1t was conceded by counsel, in argument.
that what the Supreme Court of the United
States referred to by the use of the words
two kinds of equipment" etc. was the
telephones connected by the single iron or
steel wire. called the grounded circuit
and those connected by the double copper
wire called the metallic circuit. the former
being used for local communication only.
and the latter for long distance as well as
for local service.
Justice Barnard takes the view that Con-
gress never intended by Its legislation OF
June 30 1898 to establish rate for any
thing but local service in the District, for
business and residence purposes, and was
not, therefore, necessarily concerned about
long-dIstance equipment. He says he IS
forced to the conclusion that the statute IN
cues ton was intended to be applicable only
to the ordinary telephone equipment and
service then used in the District, known as
cd
equipment" and that 1t does not apply to
the metallic circuit or 'long-distance'
telephone and its more expensive and eff
Client equipment and service. ...