Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1905-10-09
ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDS
SUCH OPINION.
Schedule of Charges in Franchise, but
Company Proposes to Make Sub
stantiaI Increases and City Resists
ANY Patron Can Bring Action
Against unreasonable" Rates.
Madison, Oct. 5.


city has not the authority to fix
or limit the rates charged for service
by a telephone company operating
under a municipal franchise, and
wnen such regulation or limitation OIL
rates is made part of franchise by
a municipality, that provision is with
out validity. The remedy against ex>
horbitant rates, however. is not
absent, for any patron can bring suit
to. have the rates complained OF de-
clared unreasonable. This is the sub
stance of an opinion rendered by AT
torney General Sturdevant in response
to inquiries made by City Attorney A.
S. Douglas OF Monroe, who called upon
and conferred with the states Legal
advisor in relation to a franchise OF
the Monroe Telephone company. The
city attorney was DESTROYS that the
attorney general give consent to the
bringing of an action in the name or
the state to declare void the franchise
Of the company, on the ground that
the company proposed to raise it's
rates of service largely above the:
rates specified in the franchise ordfn-
ance. So far as the controversy in
Monroe is concerned the opinion OF
Attorney General StTdevant is
against the city and in favor of the
telephone company. If the city had
the right to fix or limit the rates, the
company could not raise the rates
under it's franchise, but it is quite
another thing for a patron to establish
in a legal action the fact that rates
volve the examination Of the cost OF
the service and would entail so many
other details as to make long and
difficult process of litigation.
The Monroe Telephone company
secured municipal franchise by an
ordinace enacted June 81, 1899. By
provisions in that ordinance it was set
forth that the rates for telephones in
places of business should be not more
than 81 month and for residences 81
a month. The company now proposes
to raise the rates to $3.50 month
for business places and $3.50 a month
for residences. To these proposed in
creases the city objects and the city
attorney Of Monroe held a conference
with Attorney General Sturdevant to
determine upon lire of action. Mr..
Douglas was of the opinion that che
proposed increases of rates would be
a palpable violation Of the terms or
the franchise and the city could bring
suit to vacate the rights of the cor
poration. The attorney general made
a careful examination of the author
tiles and came to the conclusion that
the legislature alone has the rights to
fix or regulate the rates of public
service corporations and that at the
time the franchise ordinance was
enacted the city of Monroe had no
such right. The attorney general
holds that the legislature might pro
vide that municipalities may regulate
rates. The attorney general has writ
ten his opinion at length to City At
torney Douglas and has in closing
suggested that the patrons of the tele-
phone company are not without a
remedy, that the telephone company
is a public servant and has no right
to exact unreasonable rates for serv-
ice, and that any patron can bring an
action and if it is shown that the rates
are unreasonable the court will give
relief There may be another way,
however, in which the municipality
can get at the company. The city has
the right to control, regulate and
police the streets, and with this
police power might effectively manage
the corporation.