Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-05-15
th:rty-seven original subscribers to the

th.rty-seven original subscribers to the
old Somerset exchange. Having aban-
doned that exchange for its own con-
venience. it has not desired. as we un-
derstand the record to impose higher
charges on these old subscribers, not
withstanding the enlargement Of the
service that they enjoy through the new
exchange. The defendant points out tina.
since the opening of the Cleveland ex-
change 169 new subscribers residing in
whom pay the going rates for the Dis
trict of Columbia
'Qn these facts the defendant submits
for the decision of the commission the
question whether It may lawfully con-
exchange to the thirty-seven original SUBJ
scr1DeTs to the Somerset exchange on the
original terms then enjoyed by them, or
whether 1t must now require them to
pay the going rates exacted Of all other
In this connection we are advised that it
Is quite generally the practice Of tele-
phone companies throughout the country
TO deal with old subscribers in this way
under similar circumstances"
No Intentional Wrong.
The commissioner then goes on to say
that the case before him seems to be al
together free from the element Of in
territorial wrong and It's disposal will
probably result in increasing the revenues
OF the defendant without being Of any
advantage to the complainant except as
the enforcement of the principle Of equal
ity and common right in the transactions
between q public servant and the public
is of fundamental advantage to all and
therefore to him.
The merits Of the case are discussed
fully. the Commissioner saying:
Tho 1T
the current charges for the different
grades Of service offered and rendered to
the public by the defendant through its
Cleveland exchange or elsewhere are I'M
reasonable. What the complainant con-
tends Is that the defendant cannot law
fully demand the current rates Of him
while at the same time collect ting less
than the current rates from some Of his
friends and neighbors at Drummond for
precisely the same service. Some Of his
others heretofore alluded to pay less
than the current rates. He and the lat
ter are similarly situated In all respects.
The only difference between them is that
some years ago they were subscribers to
however. that this is not dissimilarity
Of circumstans es and conditions upon
which the defendant may lawfully base
difference in charges. The fact that they
had been subscribers to an exchange
since abandoned does not affect either
the nature or the extent Of the service
that they now receive through the new
exc hange. What the complainant wishes
is the same service and the same facilf-
ties, and what he demands is that there
shall be exacted of him no higher basis
Of charges than are exacted at the same
time from any Of his neighbors.
Although he may find that he has not
endeared himself to his neighbors by pre-
senting this matter to our attention the
compliments attitude is entirely sound.
The law expressly assures to him equal.
ity in rates and service at the hands OF
the defendant. and in standing upon his
rights his complaint when properly con-
sidered makes for ultimate justice and
is therefore q public service.
1.-THE motives Of the defendant In CIV