The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-04-14

a
AalAdls Dlsasiue - rsansssss hae d~eidse
thss tsisphea@ eompasy may noe demand
htahor rasos ffom . tsiegSaph e@sneamS
than 10 damanda 81 ether eust0an@Fa mersly
beeaRas thu tulnmrapA eonpaay usas the
tsssphona 70 asnd messages on whtch v
has eeIlass~d tolls. ThS Court granted tAs
Postal Telearaph-Cabls Company of Tee
n@aass an lnlunetiSn reasFaininG tho Cum
bertrand Tslsphons and Telegraph Company
from removing ts tslephoas Instruments
fvom ths tsleRraph company onsee In
Nashville and other cities and towns Oand-
Ina the trial % the salt.
Judge sanford. Who wrote the opantom.
derlared that the Telephone company.
which 10 often described a. Q common car
rter % newa. 70 sagAssd In . quasi public
service Affected With . publir interest. FOE
which 10 is endowed With some Of the sOv-
eretGn power Of the State and a. such IL
held 10 the obligation Of m impartial and
undisrTiminatinR service TO the public upon
common Law principles. In accordance
with tho general rils Ia 10 held under the
great weight Of authority that a telephone
company operating . telephone system
under . patent binding IL not 20 furnish
! Telephone service to any telegraph com
pany except one particular telegraph COM
pany may Be compelled to discharge lie
obligation oe equal service and 20 furnish
like facilities and service IN other telegraph
companies under like terms and conditions.
The Court notes that this common Law
obligation 10 enforced In Tennessee under
q penalty of tiO0 for every day that dis
examination n made against any individual
or company engaged IN lawful business by
requiring that its telephone facilities shall
not be used for the came business a. that
In which the telephone company Ia also
engaged. The common Law obligation
also clearly requires that the same charges
.hall Be made TO all persons for the render
ing Of similar service. The Court says
that. applying to q telephone company
q ruling OF the United States Supreme
court In . suit brought by the Western
Union Telegraph Company. 10 follows that
all individuals have equal rights both In
respect to service from The telephone COM
pany and charges therefor. and that there
can b no lawful difference In charge which
10 not based upon difference in service and
has . reasonable relation % the amount Of
difference
Judge Sanford says IL appears from the
papers In the case that there IL no snbstan-
tial difference In the mode and kind Of ser
vice rendered by the telep hone company
Ia the complainant and TO other users OF
telephones at their business houses and
IL follows therefore that the rule OF equal
and undiscriminatinR service prevents u
from charging the telegraph company .
higher rate.
-It 10 clear that . greater charge IL not
justified against the telegraph company
merely on account Of the greater profit IL
may receive from the telephone service
than other business patrons says the
Coart. To consider. 80 an element enter
ing into the proper charge for service rem
dered by q common carrier. the nna nciaI
value Of such service to the customer ire
spective Of the nature Of the service rem
dered by tho carrier. would ma nifestly
be TO Introduce an entirely nov basis Of
regulating tts rates Of service. direc'ly vio-
lauve OF the fundamental rule that they
are 10 depend upon the character OF the
service rendered.. and one witch cannot
be supported either upon principle or au-
thority-
The Court points out that the charging
OF higher rate to the telegraph company
cannot BE- supported on the ground that &c
IL competitor In business. because the
telephone company does not show by its
answer that IL does any Telegram h business
IN Tennessee. and an uncontTadicted am
davit Gays that IL does practically no tele-
graph business for the public. hut even
II u we're also enga eed Ia the telegraph
business to q material extent Judge Sar-
ford 10 OF the opinion that IT. obligation
he determined with reference to that bust
ne~s slone.
Judge sanford holds that the disrrirni-
nation is not made legal merely because
IL seeks TO impose the same additional
rates on all telegraph companies. involving
a percentage on the business obtained by
the telegraph companies throu sh tho use
Of the telephone. 10 which NJ least one tsls-
graph company has consented Judge
Sanborn says that while Judge Parker
in People w.. Hudson River Telephone
COMPANY 80 All y cas- 4s'l rendered
in special Term in 1887 ,iH~t.Iad that a
telephone company may provide that nS
telephones shall not he used for he trans
mission ~ messages on which tolls shall
be paid 10 any other party Than ITSELF
he IL unable 10 concur N Tho conClu son
although fully recoxnSinR the weight
to he given 90 the opinion or The eminent
Judge delivering tho opinion
The Court deemed IL proper In granting
the Injunction pendente lite 70 direct that
in order that any rights of the defendants
might he fully secured pending the final
bearing the telegraph COMPANY ShrU keen
IN it, several offices a fun and accurate
record of all messages received nv ~ over
the telephone lines ~ The defendant. and
its tolls therefor and NJ an messaces
delivered bv u over the telephone lines
which statement 10 20 h. hled in court
monthly. The Court Ai-o asked for a bond