The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1912-03-01
The FACTS IN
THE INDEPENDENT
TELEPHONE CASE

TELEPHONE CASE
TO the Independent Telephone com
pany In consideration Of the rates
agreed TO by the company. and this
franchise was legally and morally .
Dsnding agreement upon the Teis-
phone company.
ephouss on rental. In 1910 IL had
1871 telephones on which IL WAS
colscfinE toll, an increase Of 500
The state Legislature OF 1911 en-
acted law extending the powers Of
Include regulating telephone rates
regardless of the franchise proyls-
ions). This law has been validated
n . our supreme court: but the rights
phone rates contracted for under the
terms OF the franchise, were not AL
lowed 20 be ndtudscated by the
court because OF stipulation gem
tlcfuen's ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Into
between James r.. Bradford, Seat
ties corporation counsel. aud coun-
sci for the Independent Telephone
company.
PEOPLE OF SEATTLE INDIGNANT
| arose with indignation. and as one
man condemned the exfortionat1 In
creased charge Of $4,000 per year
ny this telephone monopoly. A pro-
eeeding was instituted by Mr.. Brad
ford TO restrain the company from
Increasing It's charges. but whom
| this case got 10 our supreme court
the black man In the wood pile ap-
psarsd A. By magic, IN verbal
supreme court ana the court could
| not pass upon the reRxona cieness OF
thc Increased rates because that
question had been stipulated out o.
agreed with the telephone nonop-
oily that Its franchise rates were too
low. and the increased rates were
reasonable
THE SUPREME COURTS DECISION
In Its decision OF January 27th.
OF February 5th. II says. The city
tby its corporation counsel Mr..
James y. Bradford) admits that the
franchise rates are inadequate; ana
upon the main issues Il IL stipuiatel
that thu sole questions to be deter
mined by us arc III Has the leg
islature vested in the Public Service
the rates specified In Par OF ord
nxnce e.4es OF the City OF Seattle
/ and ordinances amendafory thereof
under which the company Is oper-
been vested in the Pubic serviae
Commission, whether tho Legislative
acts assuming 10 grant such pow
ers are unconstitutional and void"
Again. on page 81 tho court says:
IT should be understood that Ne
Of the new rate lis fairness il ad-
mitfed by the counsel for the city
tMr. James r. Bradford). We are
dealing only with the power OF the
which exist by Its authority, and the
attending question whether those
powers may, by inac;ion. be so sur
rendered as TO estop from subse-
Qucntly asserting them"
DRADFoRD's STIPULATION
Bradford made his stipulation or
ally in open court at Olympia In the
form OF an admission. TO which the
Supreme Court refers.
TELErHoNE RATES uNREAsON-
ABLE.
| when we know that telephone
rates In sidney. Australia, are -
long distance, we are compelled to
admit that 81 for Inferior service In
\ Seattle was high enough, and Mr..
Bradford.s stipulation must have
ing evidence OF this fact out OF the
case SO that tho court could not pass
| upon the reasonableneEs OF the new
rates, and the merits OF the teie-
( phone case have never been before
the court. because of this stipula-
tion.
This decision may be reviewed
and modified by a procedure in
1 equity. on the ground that the slip
ulation Is fraudulent and void and
a n ~. ri rts~ In
court. In other words. the people
have not had their day In court.
Bradford put them out.
| BY this stipulation made IN open
court, Mr.. Bradford rendered TO the
more effectual service than he could
have rendered ~ he had been the
attorney of the telephone company.
II Is an elementary principle of
equity that fraud vitiates every
thing with which IL enters.
The finding OF the new rates By
the Public Service Commission was
accepted by the city as just and rea-
sonable, and not challenged or OBJ
tected to as II was the duty OF tho
Corporation Counsel to do, on behalf
OF the city.
At the argument OF the case be-
fore the Supreme Court, Mr.. Brad
i ford. on behalf OF the city. stipulated
In open court that the new rates
were just and that the old rates
were unjust. and this oral stipuia-
tion became one of the agreed facts
on which the court was compelled
to act. and judicial inquiry on this
vital point was thereby prevented.
1t practically put the city out Of
court and the admission forfeited
the cisy's case. The Supreme Court
did not~pass on the new rates NJ
Ian. that question was "adjudicatod"
by Bradford without any evidences
or knowledge and without authority.
simply on hrs erroneous judgments
and opinion. and with disaster to
the rights of the city. or course
\ the company told him that the rates
+ were all right--and Bradford
Thought the company ought TO know
The new rates were q vital guess
'itiou and should have been inquired
L into. and IL elected Corporation
4 Counsel. I will SEQ that they are IN
cuirad Into he sure to vote for
George Scott for treasurer. c, J;
u lst,,fls for the three year term. ana
David burgess for the oneyeax
term for the city council.
EDWIN ]. BROWN.
| 4 t..n