Evening star., 1904-03-19
Supreme Courts Ruling.

supreme COuTCS S tul1uR.
"Upon this question of construction and
the application of the statute the court
said:
".'While a legislature may prescribe reg
ulations for the management of business of
public nature, even though carried on by
private corporations with private 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 of a private corporation
of it's property any further than the public
interests require, and so no interference
will be adjudged beyond the clear letter of
the statute. Here the prohibition is against
charging or receiving more than $50 per
annum for the use of a telephone on a sep
arate wire" What kind of 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 relia-
bic than the other: that some of the COM
pany's subscribers are using the cheaper
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
that the defendant furnishes to some of IT'S
customers, besides the mere telephone such
additional equipment as wall cabinet desk
| auxiliary bells, ETC., for which separate
charges are made. Doubtless these addi-
| tional appliances facilitate and tend to
make more convenient and easy the bus-
ness of teiephoning. but they are not in
cluded in the terms of the statute and all
that Is required by its language is the fur
| nishing OF telephone. What equipment
and appliances are essential, and what ONLY
matters Of convenience may not be clearly
shown by the evidence, but obviously there
Of
District Supreme Courts Decision.
1.-The Supreme Court OF the District of
Columbia thereupon heard further proof, in
accordance with the mandate of the Su-
preme Court for the purpose OF ascertain
ing the kind. or classes, of telephones to
which the statute was applicable, and on
October 80, i903 said court decided, among
other things. that the statute in question
was intended to be applicable only to the
ordinary telephone equipment and service
then used in the District. known as the
grounded circuit" or local service equip.
ment." and that it does not apply to the
metallic circuit or '1ong-distance" tele-
phone and it's more expensive and efficient
equipment and service
This decision is unappealed from /
also understand that the case in which
this decision was made has been dismissed
by the plaintiff.
while the question is not altogether
free from doubt, 4 am inclined to hold In
view of the above decision of the Supreme
Court of the District. and in the light OF
the construction placed on said act by the
Supreme Court of the United States, that
said act Is limited in Its application to the
equipment and service known as the
grounded circuit or local service equip
ment,' and that 1t does not apply to the
metallic circuit or 1ong-distance' tele-
phone.
Direction to Mr.. Karr.
ST have therefore the honor to advise
you that IL the telephones in question be-
long to the grounded circuit system you
are not authorized to pay as rental there
for sum In excess OF the rates fixed by
said act OF June 80, 1885, but If they be-
long to what is known as the metallic cir
cult system you are authorized to pay
such rates for their use as may be agreed
upon by contract between the parties, or,
in the absence of an express contract, the
usual and customary rates charged the
public for like service"