The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-04-05
UNEQUAL TELEPHONE RATES.

The Appsllahe Division Of this DEPART
msnR IN an elaborate opinion by Nj. Justice
Victor J. Downing. In which the other mem
bers of the court concur. has Just decided
that tf 10 not unjust discrimination Tor
telephone company TO allow q discount OF
rebate OF Is per cent to the city OF New
York, charitable institutions and clergy
men.
The plaintiff and defendant entered into
q contract IN 1907 for the installation ana
equipment % q large station IN defendnnf.s
deps -tment store. The defendant paid all
charges under the contract until 1903. when
Il discovered for the hr~t time that certain
discounts had been allowed to other sub
scribers since 1905 For this reason " re-
fused to pay further bills aRRreRating about
sSs. ono The favored subscribers were the
city Of New York upon rervice paid Tor
by the city. charitable Institutions regu-
larry Incorporated a. such In connection
with stations placed In such institutions.
and clerwymen regularly ordained In con-
nection with stations In their residences or
studies
The parties conceded that the plaintiff
made these concessions solely as an e1er-
else Of charity and benevolence and Tor
the benefit of the community. The defend
ant claimed however. to he entitled 10 the
same discount on the general theory that
there should he no inequality Of rate Tor
the customer Of the plaintiff any more
than such inequality should extst In the
conduct Of a railroad or other public service
corporation
The court n, the outset inda that the
case h novel IN the Jurisprudence Of this
State and that there is no statutory pro-
hihitkOn against the granting Of rebates by
seIephone companies. Despite lack 81 statu-
tory prohibition. however. the court holds
that the original decisions, which applied
only 20 common carriers. have been ex-
tended % gas and electric light companies
and to all public service corporations.
Reference h made 70 the early case OF Root
against Long Island Railroad Company.
where the Court Of Appeals held that rail-
road might under certain circumstance
charge unequal rates where the Inequality
was reaRonAb le. Tracing the Law n made
by the decisions not only In this state but
In the Federal courts. Justice DoNltn con-
cludes that Il IN only unfair and unjust
discrimination that n aimed AZ both az
common law and under the statutes. That
the court fnds nothing unfair OF unjust In
the present case appears from his Applica-
ton Of the Law to tho facts nc bar:
IL may be deduoed from all these authorities |
that granting the fullest aspiration Of common |
law limitations 20 ell public service corporations.
what h prohibited ia the exercise Of unfair. unjust
aud sona bic Discrimination - between those
70 situated that the conditions and circumstances
arc tdentlral. 10 n dihcult 70 imagine ground
upon wftch the consideration extended 20 the
three particular Glasses enumerated can be held /
% be unfair. unjust or unreasonable discrtmi l
nation against any Ths conditions and |
surrounding them and under which !
they eAerris@ their functions entirely dinerrn, 4
from those sttending the defendant. The latter ,
L. q corpora ton engaged In . business the maxni-
lude 90 which Is lndicat ted 10 some extent by the
amount OF Telephone service which u required
IL a.. . al KIN IA eF
modern commercial conditions tho use OF the
telephone 10 an essential adjunct tn the Satsfac-
Tory iransactou OF business. IL Ia q substitute
Tor purr basing In person. saving time rSTrtOu
lent in business life. Ciergytnen. charitable
Institutions and the municipality are not com
pctitors rivals 10 business OF the defendant.
y hat heIps them does not damAgeit
~ does not appear that the concession made
% tho former aids one io,a the cost OF nc
~rvtre furnished 10 the latter. u the corpora
ION chooses TO exercise henevolence by granting
reduction from IT, regular charge Ia thosr
. ho universally recognized A. the proper
cciricnts Of consideration, that Il matter
,ctWccn the corporation and it, stockholders.
ho are comforting the favor. and not = concern
y the defendant. which contributes nothing 70,
: n the corporation chooses 20 recognize iSS
,hHg alton to the city by assisting In decreasing
ne expenses OF government To the rN'rnt 90
percentage ~ the charges FOR telephone ~~r' icr
Z
IonAtsiy reduces the burden upon the dcfendant
md all other taxpayers. and this unusual r-~oVni.
ION Of = Debt Of gratitude should not bc tis
ouTag~i
Theeourts have recognized the righ, 81 rom
non carrier 30 carry q person free who Is unable
. nay fare. TO carry supplies ~ nominal rAtes
~ communities Scourged bv disease rendered
destitute by foods or other casualty Hay, -
Company, .. Fed J0Y 'he~e
~ exercises of bcnevoIence. They have also
common carrier to allow ministers % the gospel ,
n travel on half fare iickets tinted States ~ ,
hcago and Northwestern Railroad. ~ Ted. .
~. and 10 extend more favorable terms tp .
tai or municipal government InterStn'- com
lerce Commission Baltimore ami onto Rail
cad. las United states ga.
In q caSs OF gaS company n was said mat 10 J :
urniSh Gas 20 the city OF New YorE fpr IS cent,
thousand feet. while private consum-rs paid ~ a
not illegal disc rtminationt y ulruNys
Consolidated Gas Company. q. United states 81. ,
Finally the court foFtines it- conclusions i
" quoting from the public servi's com !
nj s~ion's Law. which provides among other T,
hings that common carriers may give free q,
alton 70 ministers NJ rel giOn in a
laiea Of hospitals. charitable and rls.eruo-y- !
ary institutions and persons engaged ~.
luEvely In chart able and ele"mosynarv
FORK. indiR gent and homeless persons AMI
h. agents acCompai. eng hem whom srnt
v chart able societies. a. well "a give free, b
r reduced rate transportation ~ persons q
r property for the United States. state or Il
municipal governments q