Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1909-07-01
SUPREME COURT RULES IN "a.
voR OF MAJ ~ [. HAS A
JUST GRIEVANCE.
MAY BE DEPRIVED OF SERVICE
F PROFANITY IS HABlTuAL
Supreme Court Lays Down Some Gen.
eral Rules and Gives Wholesome
Advice Governing Use of Telephones
-company's Contention Partially
Sustained.
pecial to Times-Republication
Sustained.

swear moderately over the telephone
and be excused for it if he shows
proper humiliation, but a telephone
company has a right to deprive him of
its service if after being given due
and timely warning he doesn't desist
from his profanity. This is the gist of
decision of the supreme court in
which it upholds the decision of the
Boone district court.
The supreme court says: Some all
lowance is to be made for the infirmi-
ties of human nature. Habit sometimes
excuses If it does not justify the use
of Objectionable language. Early en-
vironment more often than an evil
spirit is responsible for bad manners"
The case is that of George Huffman
against the Marcy Mutual Telephone
Company. The evidence seemed to
show that Huffman was talking over
the telephone which was party line
with his own and six other houses on
the line. when someone took down their
telephone and bothered him. He is ac-
cussd of saying: ut is some c.
IPklts IlOHIildI QeHieQ l'lc
use of the two profane words, but 1t
was generally admitted that he had
done some course talking over the
phone and that there was considerable
feeling between him and the other pat
rons of the line
But Hoffman claims that he stopped
all violations of the rules and acted a
perfect gentleman after he had been
warned by the manager of the tel
ephone company. However, later on
his telephone was removed and the
manager OF the company testified that
il was done because patrons threatened
him they would stop using his company
unless Huffman was cut off.
The district court took the ground
in the suit which Huffman started TO
get back his phone that the company
was bound to restore it since Huffman
had desisted from his habit of profan-
ity over the phone when properly
warned: that the company was COM
mon carrier and could not permanently
deprive a citizen of the use of its prop
erty This the supreme court ap-
proves.
In handing down the decision the
supreme court takes occasion to lay
down some general rules and to give
some Wholesale advice as to telephone
etiquette which. in view of the
wide extension of telephones nowadays
and their common use bids fair to be-
come recognized authority as to tel
ephone use and abuse.
Part of the decision is as follows:
Much is said in argument of the
right of such a company to adopt reas-
enable rules and regulations for the
transaction of its business. That ii
might have established such rules is not
cred none in the record before us and il
would scarcely seem necessary to pre-
scribe in advance rule prohibiting the
/ employment of profane, vulgar and in
decent languag e over a telephone line
especially when this is likely to be
heard by third persons, or prohibiting
| Interference with the use of the line by
others. Such line when used in com
mon enters many family circles and the
I proprietor Is warranted in assuming. al
least, until the contrary appears thai
1 its patrons will have regard for the
1 ordinary amenities of life and observe
! the courtesies common to civilized SO.
ciety.
Upon discovery that in this it has
been mistaken as to any subscriber an6
I that, Notwithstanding being duly
warned he persists in the use of i'm.
proper language over the line or pur.
posely interferes in conversations be
| tween other patrons of the system If
order to annoy or interrupt their con.
.versations or force them to yield the
line for his convenience and this is per
sisted in after being duly warned t.
desist therefrom, there would seem t
| be but one adequate remedy and tina
is to withdraw the service from such
person. Otherwise the efficiency of the
enterprise would be impaired or de
suoyed and the proprietor fail in furn
ishing the character of service implied
ly promised.
The very nature of the service un
dertakea exacts control to that exten
for without the power to withdraw j
under the circumstances mentioned
there could be no assurance of its char
acter or efficiency. A single patron b.
meddlng and discourtesy might de
prive his neighbors of the benefits of ;
/ convenient invention and destroy thu
value of the property devoted to thu
public service. This power to regulat
is essential in order to enable the de
PENDANT to perform such service and i
clearly to be implied from the natur
of the enterprise. But 1t ought never t.
be arbitrarily exercised.
Reasonable caution must be takel
lest injustice be done. Some allowanc
is to be made for the infirmities o
human nature. Local customs are no
to be ignored. Habit sometimes ex
cuses if it does not Justify the use o
Objectionable language. Early environ
ment more often than an evil spirit i
reasonable for bad manners. Undis
closed emergencies may extenuat
--- It is tn