The citizen. (Honesdale, Pa.) 1908-1914, 1909-09-10
A LETTER FROM IOWA.
Something About a Famous Tele-
phone Case in That State.

phone Case in That State,
"Out in Iowa a person may ever
"cuss" into his telephone and the
Supreme Court of that state has
decided that the phone company
cannot remove the instrument from
his domicile on that account. Iowa
evidently needs missionaries. -
The Citizen, July 14th, 1909.
The writer does not call the at
tention of The Citizen and it's many
readers to the above on the editor
lal page of that excellent paper,
because he thinks Iowa does not
need missionaries. for these good
men are needed in Iowa and in
every state for that matter, but it
may be worth while to keep history
straight.
No doubt the decision referred to
was made in the case, Huffman VS..
Marcy Mutual Telephone Co., June
80, 1903, and reported in 121
Northwestern Reporter, 1893.
The court finds the facts that
the language complained of, was
USED by a patron of telephone
line in a farming district, where
there were six patrons, and the
manager informed the offender
that such language over the line
could not be tolerated, and that
unless he quit disturbing the line,
he would take out his telephone"
Ihe court further finds there
was no evidence of improper Ian
guage or of any disturbance "af-
ter this notice was given, and that
the telephone was removed two
months from the time of the
notice.
The action was brought to COM
pei the defendant company TO
place telephone in plaintilf's
residence, and furnish him service
over its line.
me court, after stating the well
known rule that telephone COM
panies are common carriers of in
tellleence and news, are bound to
afford equal facilities to all in
ike situations, and that they
must supply all alike" who are
alike, and cannot discriminate
against any one" uses the follow
ing language: mo one can we'll de-
1end the language employed bv
plaintiff. AS a witness, he admitted
itS lmpropriety. And though not
chargeable with all the disturbance
on the line, we entertain no doubt
but that both he, and one of his
children at least, had abused the
privilege afforded them, and so
lar ignored the golden rule as to
nave made use of the line as q
venice of petty spite toward two
or his neignbors. But it does not
appear that they persisted upon
pelng warned that such conduct
would not be tolerated, nor that
they were guilty of any improprietv
thereafter during the two months
intervening between such warning
and the removal of the telephone :"
On the above finding of facts, the
court ordered the telephone put
pack in plaintiffs residence,
Inc court in quite an extended
opinion, takes occasion in languape
other than above quoted to show
IL mas no sympathy with the use
OF improper talk over telephone
lnes, and vigorously reprehends
the same
The writer does not reside in the /
where the controversy arosa
Dut probably the action has much
OF the element of tit for fat Z"
mat unfortunately plays a part in
breaking up the friendly relations
mat should exist among neighbors
VINO are associated together in q
-armers' telephone company
100 much of your space has been
lsea IN this attempt to keep history
and protect the good name
u our Supreme Court.
Inc writer resides in a rich
armlng district of Iowa, where the
highways appears at this time of
ne year, to be only narrow threads
'etWeen the immense fields of fall
'orn. The farmers are already
bringing into our banks large eore
II dented corn as exhibits of the
rop That soon will be matured
lany of them have over 100 acres
II corn on each of their rolling
rair1e farms. They are producers
urely, and have not any sympathy
WIN those statesmen, who all the
lme are haranguing so loudly about
ne ultimate consumer" that it
'oulu almost seem this individual
elongs to one separate class. who
mould have the center of the
Iage and both sides, while in
ruin and fact, in the main, the con-
umer and producer are combined
I the same person