The Washington herald., 1914-05-25
TAE orr FORUM
Herald Realen White Of Telephone
and Sunday Amusements.


To the Editor: I zee that your reporter.
on page Of your issue Of May q. in his
report Of the meeting OF citizens held at
the EbbItt House TO organize and resist
the telephone company IN tfiscity chang
ling rates for telephone service, reports
me as saying:
That the company had not changed its
service without applying for permission
subscriber would have the right to
kick out Of his ONCE q telephone officiaI
who had not applied to change rates II
the rates are changed. II viii be because
the company 10 successful IN a game Of
blun. They have no legal right to ask
ldiscontinuance Of the present service.
Unreasonable anywhere. and especially in
a city of this size. The public should be
protected"
What I did say was that under the
Public Utilities law, passed a little over
a year ago. the telephone company had
no right within itself to change or dis
continue any rate which II was charging
and collecting from subscribers in this
District at the time the utilities law was
passed without applying to the Utilities
Commission and requesting that commits
sion to make the change in or discontinue
the rates which the company desired
made; that in such application the COM
pany was required by the new law to
specifically state what II desired the
commission to do. and to give its reasons
for such proposed change or distinuance
of rates That prior to the passage Of
this act the telephone company might. by
contracts with subscribers. fix rates IT.
self not inconsistent or contrary to the
| law then in force: but when the new law
came into effect II took away such right
from the telephone company and placed
It with the Public Utilities Commission.
and the Public Utilities Commission was
the only authority in the District now
who could change or discontinue rates
which were in force at the passage Of the
utilities law. The methods which the
telephone company were employing to In
iduce subscribers under -nat-rate con-
tracts to change the rate for the serv-
ice were unauthorized by the utilities law.
and that any subscriber under the Hat
rate contract would be justified in kicking
out of his Office any representative of the
company who would come there seeking
to remove his phone. because such sub
/ scriber would not consent to the COM
! pany changing his rate from lower to a
! higher rate; that such change could only
be made by authority of the Utilities
| Commission and not by the company"
i I further stated that after the tele-
phone company had applied to the Utili-
ties Commission for a change or discon-
tinuance of rates the commission was
then required. under the law. to call
public meeting and have a public hear
ing on the questions. and after such
public hearing the commission must and
would determine, fix and declare what
would be a reasonable rate for the serv-
ice. That it was IN that way only under
the existing law that telephone rates
could be changed or discontinued in the
District of Columbia"
; 1 am sure your reporter did not inten-
tionally misrepresent me. and as wish t.
|. be correctly quoted, when quoted at all.
respectfully request that you will correct
. the report in accordance with the state
lments Of facts herein given.
| CREED VI. FULTON.