Evening star., 1914-07-30
COMPANY STRIKES
FLAT PHONE RATE
Answers Injunction Suit, Say
ing Contracts Are Bar
red by Law.
HELD DISCRIMINATORY
OTHER SUBSCRIBERS
Denies Threats Were Made in En-
deavoring to Obtain New
Agreements.

Agreements.
Tho Oh. sapeake and Potomac Ieie-
nhone Company filed answer 1ooa! ~
tbe injunction proceedings n1ousne
,-ai,s, the company By Jesse L. Heis-
Van far hiunseIf and his associates IN
.he Tn,enhone subscribers Association
"a nreyent the cancellation OF the la~
r.te charged for telephone service 10
business houses The company sousEt
70 discontinue these contracts June l
by notice previously given
The company claims the contracts IN
controversy are discriminatory ana taii
under the inhibition of the public utif-
ties act. 1t is also urged that the con-
tracts provide for termination aiter
stated notice, and that Congress could
not enact a law which would destroy
the right vested by the contracts maze
before the enactment. The defendan.'
through Attorney II. Is. T. MacfarlaId.
also questions the jurisdiction or th9
equity court. declaring that an! sfe'
arlce of the plaintiff would amount 70
breach of contract, for which he would
have g. complete ana adequate FeHNeo1
in court OF law.
hearing is OeleTIeo.
By consent Of Attorney E. H. Thomas
for the plaintiff and Attorney Macfar-
land. hearing on the rule issued against
the company has been deferred until
September.
In its answer. made by its vice presi.
dent and general manager. M. ~
Buehler the company admits that the
provisions of the act Of April ~. 1904.
with reference to certain rates 70 pc
charged for telephone service in the
District OF Columbia are correctly
stated in the bill Of complaint. 1t AYERS,
however. that the act of Congress at
tempted to fax rates only for telephone
service furnished the District Of Co
!u.. o.a anu private residences. The act
lid not fix or attempt to rates to De
charged for service at any place OF
business or at any other places than
those enumerated in the act. Accord
phone service at any place of business
In the District of Columbia is and has
been a matter of contract between the
defendant and the subscribed ana no.
controlled or governed by any act OF
Congress.
Denies Force of Contracts.
The company admits that the con-
tracts entered into between the plain
tiff and it and other subscribers sim
ilarly situated were entered into before
the passage of the act of March f. 1913.
II denies, however that these contracts
are now in full force and effect and
AYERS the fact to be that the contract
OF the plaintiff was legally and law
fully terminated by this defendant
June ], 1914: by notice under date OF
niand of the defendant for greater or
other compensation after the termina-
tion of the contract June I. 1914. than
the compensation stated in the contract
so terminated is unlawful.
Held Standard Rates.
The rates intended by the act Of
March 4. 1913, says the defendant COM
pany. to remain in force until altered
or changed by the public utilities COM
mission, are not the exceptional and
discriminatory rates then or now in
existence. but are the regular common
or standard rates which were In force
at the time Of the passage of the act.
and which were being currently
charged to and paid by the great ma
jority Of patrons Of the defendant
BY the terms Of that act, 1t Is assert
ed, all discriminatory. preferential or
favored rates. as distinguished from
are expressly prohibited. and after the
?assage of the said act 1t became the
duty of and was lawful for this de-
fendant to abolish such discriminatory.
Preferential or favored rates as were
Ut that time in existence, without form
al hearing by the public utilities COM
mission.
Ruling of Commission.
The court is told that May 10 last the
telephone company received a copy Of
the opinion Of the public utilities COM
mission, In which it was held that the
.iat-rate business service furnished the
plaintiff and others similarly situated
Vas unlawful because Of discrimination.
and stating that the defendant and all
persons receiving this class of service un-
der contracts similar to the one referred
20 in said opinion, which is identically the
same kind and character OF contract as
that between the Plaintiff and the defend
ant, are subject to fines prescribed BY
the act Of March 4, 1913. The defendant
admits that IL never made application In
writing to the commission to change the
Tates In force at the time Of the pas
Dage of the act, but it Is not ADVISED
what, IL any. hearing has been held by
.he commission before adopting the opir.
Ion referred to.
Contracts Explained.
But the defendant avers that on o,
cbout -aptti 1910, u e1plaine0 &c
the commission the then existing status
az to obsolete fiat-rate contracts held by
the plaintiff and a few others for bust.
ness service within the District, and there.
after exhibited to the commission a de.
tailed list containing full description o,
each Of the hat-rate contracts for bust.
ness service with the names Of the sub.
so!ibers holding them. and from time Il
time thereafter the defendant has report.
ed TO the commission the progress the de
fendant was making in canceling ano
eliminating the obsolete dat-rate CON
tracts.
The defendant further AYERS tha,
April D.. 1913. 1t duly flied with tn.
commission, as required by law, it,
regular schedule of rates which wert
IN force in the District March 4. 1918
and that this schedule contains ali tn,
rates available to the general public
within the District and does not CON
tain or In any wise mention the obso
lete fiat rates or the contracts there
for. The defendant admits that on tn,
last mentioned date II also filed will
the commission the exhibits mentioned
in the plaintiffs bill Of complaint. Tn,
defendant AYERS that the rates Sc
forth In exhibit A with the bill ar,
special rates to the government of tn,