The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-10-03
CITY GAINS POINT IN LOCAL PHONE
 RATE CONTROVERSY
Railroad Commission De-
 nies Authority To Act
CITE JOKER" IN CODE
Telephone Company Loses In Its Contention That State Body Had Jurisdiction Over
 Rates Within City

Montgomery, October 2.-(Special)- While the Alabama railroad commission i5 willing to claim statutory right to l Jurisdiction in so far as long distance rates from one town to another are con
 cerned, it admittedly has no Jurisdiction over local telephone rates in any city or town of Alabama A decision to this ef-
 feet was today rendered by. the commits sioners at their October session in this
 city in the case of the city of Birming-
 ham against the Southern Bell Telephone
 company of that city.
 The decision Of the commission is vic- tory for the city, the officials of which all
 along have been contending that the rail- road commission has no authority over
 the local telephone rates. The telephone
 company on the other hand alleged jufis- diction in the hands of the commission,
 and insisted that their rights to increase
 the telephone rates in the Magic City should be passed upon by the state body Is Without Authority
 In rendering an opinion in the case the commission cites a ''joker' in the code, but for which they would in all prob- | ability have assumed authority over the | squabble. In an amendment to the act giving the commission authority over the | telephone and telegraph companies of the | state the word rates is left out and only the word Hines appears. The commits sion interpreted this omission to mean | that they had authority only over the | telephone lines and not over rates. The inference is that only municipal bodies | have authority over the rates, hence the | city of Birmingham must fight for it's | point This point of attack is to keep | the telephone company from increasing | it's rates. The full opinion of the com | mission follows: Order of Commission
 | In the above cause, at hearing had in Birmingham on September 21. 1911. the city of Birmingham resisted the petition Appearances for the com pany, J. T. Stokeley, Hunt Chipley, IL. E. w. Palmer; appearances for the city, E. H. Dryer, A. Leo Oberdorfer. The Jurisdiction of the commission was challenged and oral argument was heard in regard thereto, pro and con,
 after which the petitioning telephone company, by consent of the commits
 sion, Commissioner McCord dissenting. amended the original petition by strik- ing it's prayer and in substance making
 a declaration of certain advances III
 it's local exchange rates, effective Mo-
 vember 1, 1911, for the city of Bir-
 mipgham. The challenge was still main-
 taired after the amending as to the Jurisdiction of the commission. On agreement by parties at interest, briefs as to jurisdiction were filed with the icoprmission. Y. l After due consideration the com mission, through it's president, asso- ciate commissioners concurring, rem
 dered the following opinion and deci- sion:
 The Southern Bell Telephone and
 Telegraph company requests the ap- proval by the commission of an in crease in its rates to local subscribers of its exchange located in the city of Birmingham. The commission has pre- scented to it an anomalous condition. A public utility corporation is claiming that an important unit of it's property is being operated at loss and re- quests the commission to investigate It's affairs and grant relief by the ap- proval of rates that 1t has filed with the commission, which are higher than the rates 1t Is now chargingsfor serv- ice.
 Jurisdiction Is Challenged On the other hand the Jurisdiction of the commission is challenged by the local authorities of the city interested, although no jurisdiction Is claimed by said city over the rates of such cor porations, except that of acquiescence or retaliation. .... It is not the validity and constitution ality of the act creating the commission, or it's authority over public utilities that is under consideration. but what utilities are under its Jurisdiction. It 1t were the former, this commission would pass upon the merits of the proposition and leave the courts to construe the validity of the law. In considering the question of 5u- risdiction, 1t is correct for the commission to assume authority, if there should be any doubt in it's mind as to the meaning of the act, as to what utilities are under it's supervision and control. The commits sion has no doubt of the intention of the legislature to give to it's supervision and control over all public utilities operated beyond the confines of the smallest unit of government where 1t was necessary to protect the general public.
 In the case of street railways, if they are confined in their operation entirely within one city, it is expressely stipulated | that this commission has no jurisdiction; | but when their lines extend beyond the | limits of any one city, the commission | is given authority and has supervision over it's service and rates to patrons | wholly within such city as we'll as the | services and rates extended beyond. Intent of Legislation
 | It would appear that the legislature had | in view leaving to each locality, as far
 as practicable. the regulation and con | trol of it's own affairs and would interfere only when 1t became necessary for the protection of outside subdivisions of the | state from any discriminating service and | unreasonable rules of public utilities | which such city might be fostering. l Tn the nature of its operation the com
 mission could not protect the outside pub lie fully in the case of street railways,
 unless it also had supervision and regula- | tion of it's service and rates within, as well as without such city.
 | The telephone is comparatively new utility. It has become indispensable, and | it's value is measured not only by it's local service. but more from the close contact 1t brings its local subscribers