Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1919-02-05

when it was ordered and the armts-
tice had been signed. Emphasis was
placed on the point that there was
no question of ownership, only SUI
pervision and control. In opening
\ Mr.. Schaffer assailed the postmaster
general for sweeping aside the laws
of the state, and in closing asserted
| that he had exercised arbitrary
power and that Pennsylvania would
not endure tyrannical use of author
| ity now any more than it had in
| years gone by. The authority con-
/ ferred in the wire control bill is not
as broad as in the railroad law, and
! rate making, held Mr.. Schaffer, is q
state matter.
! Thomas Patterson, of Pittsburgh,
and j. l.. Swayne. of New York,
counsel for the bill. agreed with Mr..
/ Schaffer that the question raised in
volved state rights and was far
reaching proposition, but Mr.. Pat
terson saying that this action being
taken under war powers, which
when exercised by the President,
/ cannot be stayed by any agency, it
would be unfortunate" if any con-
| fiict occurred between the federal
and state courts and that iresist-
ance by Pennsylvania would go
around the wold and damage a
repute for loyalty second to None
Mr.. Swayne said that the war powers
of the President were irresistible and
without limit, and that in proclama-
tons and orders certain ones rela-
tive to wires had been delegated to
the postmaster general.
The Bell attorneys, in replying to
Mr.. Schaffer's contention that the
emergency under which war powers
could be exercised had passed, called
attention to the fact that American
soldiers were occupying bridge
,, heads on the Rhine and fighting on
| the snowy plains of Northern Rus
sia as proof that war had not ended.
The telephone company, they de-
clared, was merely an agent, paid
so much for the use of it's property
and facilities and under the post
master \ general. Therefore, they
reid, the company could not comply
with any order, and any process, in
| effect, would be against the Presi-
dent of the United States. They
produced numerous citations from
recent court decisions.
The attorney general, in closing,
said that no custodian for war pur-
poses could override State law,
especially when a corporation Gre
ated by Pennsylvania and under su-
pervision of it's public service COM
mission was involved. The increase
OF rates without approval of the
state, he charged, was an invasion |
of state rights dating from the for
nation of the republic, and insisted
that for everything the President
does he must find authority in the
constitution, in law or in a court
decision, saying neither he nor any
satellite can challenge the sover-
eighty of a state He declared that
what the postmaster general has done
is fundamentally wrong" and that
a raising of rates Is no exercise of
war power. He said courts should
stay the hands of the postmaster /
general, and courageous Pennsyl- |
vanians assert liberties guaranteed |
to them.
Judge Kunkel discussed with Mr.. |
Schaffer possibilities of punishment
in event that rates were enjoined |
and Mr.. Schaffer said the result |
might be some difficulty in getting
the right party. He also asid peo-
pie might refuse to pay the in
crease, and when sued could raise
the issue. He told the court toward |
the action of the federal authorities
was discretionary exercise of power.