Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1905-10-11
CITY CANNOT FIX
TELEPHONE RATES
SUCH OPINION.
HOLDS
DIFFICULTY IN MONROE
Schedule of Charges in Franchise, but
Company Proposes to Make Sub
stantiaI Increases and City Reslsts
Amy Patron Can Bring Action
Against Unreasonable" Rates.
Madison. Oct.


A city has not the authority TO fix
or limit the rates charged for service
by a telephone company operating
under a municipal franchise, and
when such regulation or limitation OF
rates is made a part of a franchise by
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 compiaiGed of de-
clared unreasonable. This is the sub
stance of an opinion rendered by At
torney General Sturdeyant 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 OF
! 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 or1in-
ance. So far as the controversy in
Monroe is cor cerned the opinion of
Attorney General StTdeyant is
againsI The city and in favor of the
telephone company II the city had
the right to fix or limit the rates, the
company could not raise the rates
under its franchise, but 1t is quite
another thing for a patron to establish
/ III a legal action the fact that rates
are unreasonable, for that would in
Yolve the examination of the cost OF
the service and would entail so many
other details as to make long and
I difficult process of litigation.
The Monroe Telephone company
i 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 a month and for residences 81
a month. The company now proposes
to raise the rates to $3.50 a 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 a line Of action Mr..
Douglas was of the opinion that the
proposed increases of rates would be
palpable violation of the terms OF
the franchise and the city could bring
suit to yacate the rights of the cor.
poration. The attosney 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 nublic servant ana has no right
to exact unreasonable rates for serv-
ice, and THAI any patron can bring an
action and ii 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 ana
police the streets. and with this
police power might effectively manage
the corporation.