Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-01-31
APPEAL MAY
BE MADE BY
N. v. ACCOMPANY
Telephone Concern Has the
Right to Test Legality Of
Yesterdays Order.

Right to Test Legality Of
Yesterdays Order.
The Northwestern Telephone Elk
! change company Is understood to
have the right to appeal from the de-
ciston made yesterday by the state
board Of railroad commissioners re-
straining the company from collecting
fees o the use Of more than one
telephone where a Tri-State instru-
ment Is also installed. Whether or
not such an appeal will be made, is
not definitely known. ,
| Today the text Of the order handed
down by the railroad. commissioners
was received here. and in it are got
forth the contentious Of the telephone
company aSwell as the commission
comments thereon. The order reads
as follows:
ION or about August /, 1919, the
Northwestern Telephone Exchange
company, owned and operated a tele-
phone exchange at Grand Forks, N.
D., secured title to the telephone ex-
change Of the Tri-State Telephone
and Telegraph company of the same
city. Permission was secured from
the city council Of. Grand Forks and
this board to consolidate the ex-
exchange formerly owned by the Tri-
State Telephone and Telegraph COM
pany and the exchange of the North
western Telephone company. In an
agreement entered into with the city
Of Grand Forks on that date the
Northwestern Telephone Exchange
company, which will be referred to
herein as the telephone company,
| n o~naH IN vonlyn ~hr,osrov N~~~artjon
between the two exchange systems at
the earliest possible date or not later
than January l. 1920.
upon petition by the statutory
number of patrons of the telephone
company, hearing was had before this
commission on the Sth day Of Janu-
airy, 1919, at which the telephone
company was represented by counsel
and the state by the attorney general
of the state. It was ~contended by the
witnesses for the state that physical
the two telephone systems at Grand
Forks within thirty days and at a cost
Of about 5000. 1t was commended by
the witnesses for the telephone com
pany that the exchanges could not be
consolidated at a cost less than $780, 900
and that a temporary physical con-
nection would cost at least $4,000. 1T
was IuilAleF CoIlCenueu ny ZIG leAe'
phone company that this commission
was without jurisdiction upon the
grounds that chapter 209 Of the laws
of 1915 did not contemplate connec-
ton between telephone systems owned
by the same corporation, company OF
person and that defendant telephone
company was engaged at Grand
Forks in interstate commerce and
therefore beyond the jurisdiction of
the commission.
Board Does Not Agree.
'The legal objections will be con-
sidered first. We canot agree with
defendants contentious. Section II
of chapter 209 provides that physical
connection may be made and service
established between the telephone ex-
changes owned by different corpora
tons. companies, or persons or be-
tween telephone systems regardless
Of their ownership. The provisions
Of this section together with the pro-
visions Of section 10, prohibiting du-
p~lication of service. and section 2.
supervision of telephone systems
within the state, lodges with it ample
power to order this connection.
Defendants contention that its
property at Grand Forks Is engaged
in interstate commerce Is not mater
ial. Physical connection, unless SO
unreasonable as to become a direct
burden, between common carriers is
not a burden upon interstate COM
merce. This has been the settled law
since the supreme court Of the United
States SO declared in Wisconsin E. T.
IC. Railroad Co. v. Jacobson, 1919 U.
s. 287: see also, Oregon r. R. & N.
Cp. v. Fairchild. 224 U. s. go.
Contract With City No Bar.
"As to whether or not defendant
telephone company has exercised due
diligence in making this physical con-
nection is a controverted question and
not without its difficulties 1t is clear
that they are not barred from making
immediate connection by, their con-
tract with the city in which 1t was
agreed that it was to be made at the
earliest possible moment and in nc
event at a later date than January
l, 1920. There was considerable con-
flict in the testimony as to the meth
cd of making this physical connec-
ton. its cost and feasibility. The
commission is OF the opinion, how
ever, that eighteen months is an un-
that it works an undue hardship upon
its subscribers in the city of Grand
Forks.
1T is clear to the commission, how.
ever. that to permit defendant to
burden the people OF Grand Forks
with $1,000 or more a month for du.
plicate telephones during the time OF
this consolidation is entirely without
iequity. The benefits of consolidation
accrue alike to the telephone com.
pany and its patrons. That the pa.
irons should be compelled to bear the
entire burden Of the cost of the dupli.
cate service during the time that the
telephone exchanges are being con-
solidated or united is entirely without
equitable defense.
1T is therefore ordered that the
telephone company IN and after Feb
ruary l, 1919. desist from collecting
duplicate telephone charges wherever
the service of the Northwestern Tele-
phone exchange and the Tri-State
Telephone and Telegraph exchange
are now duplicated: but that the de-
PENDANT continue to furnish service
through both exchanges to such pa
irons until such time as the exchanges
are consolidated or connected.
1T is further ordered that physical
connection between the telephone sys-
TENS be completed by the defendant
at a date not later than the LIST, day OF
June, 1919.
Dated at Bismarck. North Dakota,
this seth day Of January. 1919..
IS. J. Aandahl,
&C. F. Dupuis,
Frank Milhollan,
Board of Railroad Commissioners.
Attest:
u. H. Calderhead.
"secretaEx"
w. S. S. CHAIRMEN