Evening star., 1914-07-15
Jesse L. HeiskeII Files Suit to
Enjoin Phone Company
From Raising Rates.
PERTAINS TO CONTRACTS
WITH BUSINESS HOUSES
Justice Anderson Issues Rule Giving
Company Until July "a to
Answer Petition.


junction today in the District Supreme
Court against the Chesapeake and Po-
tomac Telephone Company to enJoir
the threatened termination of fiat-ratt
contracts with business houses for tele-
phone service. Where attempts have
been made to terminate contracts the
plaintiff, acting for an association OF
business men. asks the court to compel
the company to restore the former rate
for service.
Through Attorney E. H. Thomas. the
plaintiff declares the attempted abro-
cation is unlawful, and requests the
court to compel specific performance OF
the original contracts by the company
The court Is also requested to prevent
the telephone company from charging
greater rate for telephone service to
business houses than that set out In
the contracts attempted to be abro-
gated.
Justice Anderson issued a rule on the
company, returnable July -, to show
cause why the prayers of the petition
should not be granted.
Acts of Congress Recalled.
The bill states that the telephone COM
pany is occupying the streets and other
public spaces with its wires. conduits and
poles under revocable permits. Refer
ence is made to various acts Of Congress.
including the act of June 30, 1898, which
fixed the rate for grounded circuit tele-
phones at $50 a year, and the act OF
April u, 1904, which provided that until
the population of the District reached
35O,OOO private residences should be
charged no more than $4S a year for
telephone service Reference is made to
the public utilities law. it being asserted
by subscribers interested in the suit that
they were furnished telephone service
under the fiat rate system on contracts
in force at the time this law was passed
and that the rates in force under these
contracts at the time of the passage OF
the public utilities law are the lawful
rates until they are changed or set aside
by the public utilities commission.
The bill alleges that no application has
ever been made to the commission by
the telephone company for a change or
discontinuance of the rates existing un-
der these contracts and that it Is beyond
the power Of the telephone company to
change the rates mentioned under the
contracts, as that power resides solely
in the public utilities commission.
Exhibits are filed with the bill giving
the rates for telephone service in exist
ence at the time of the passage Of the
public utilities law which show that there
were about 1S7 contracts for business
telephones under the f1at-rate system in
operation when the public utilities law
has denominated obsolete rates. and 1t Is
claimed by the telephone subscribers that
the company has no authority to evade
the public utilities act by asserting that
the rates are obsolete.
Rate Called Discriminatory.
1t also appears that the telephone
company has endeavored to have fat
rate subscribers enter into contracts
for measured service. and has given
notice to the subscribers holding fiat
rate contracts that their contracts have
been terminated, on the ground that
the fiat rate system was discriminatory
and in violation of the public utilities
law. The bill claims that the dtscrtm-
ination is against the subscribers hav-
ing measured service, and that the low
est rates in force at the time of the
passage Of the public utilities law are
the lawful rates until changed by the
public utilities commission. History of
the endeavors of Mr.. Heiskell. repre-
senting himself and others. to obtain a
hearing on this question before the pub
lie utilities commission is set forth,
and 1t appears that in response to
numerous inquiries Mr.. Heiskell learned
that the commission had adopted the
opinion of Corporation Counsel Syme
that the fiat rate system is dis
criminatory.
The bill claims that the public utilities
commission had no authority to pass any
order fixing rates or to determine that
telephone rates are discriminatory until
after public hearing, and shows that nc
such public hearing has ever been granted
and that the telephone company has
never asked for such a hearing. Mr.
Heiskell. however. SO the bill states, be-
gan in February Of this year to demand
hearing on the subject of rates and
discrimination before the public utilities
commission and was refused such a
hearing until after the commission had
made a valuation of the telephone COM
pany's property, it being held by the
commission that consideration of the
complaints of the fiat rate subscribers
would have to be postponed until aftel
the public utilities commission had val
ued the telephone companys property.
1t appears from the bill that Mr.. Heis.
kell. at the invitation of its executive Of
ficer. called on the chairman of the com
mission, who took the ground that nc
order had been passed regarding the tel
ephone rates or holding that the fiat rate
system was discriminatory: and that the
public utilities commission had never
passed on the question: and that the
matter was a private one between the
telephone company and the fiat rate sub
scribers.
TOXIC RIOTERS SENTENCED.