The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1919-10-28
Judqe Rhea Holds Commission
Has Jurisdiction in Telephone Case;
City of Richmond to Enter Appeal

in the city of Richmond by order Of
the postmaster general, we're mate
rally increased over the rates of
charwe In force IN tho 6tt% prior TO
the assumption of coatro! by the fed
cral authorities, and The act Of con-
gross Of July nth, 1al@ after d.
recting the return Of the lines and
systems as above Sc out contained
the following proviso
Provided however that the ex-
listing toll and exchange rates as es-
tablishcd or approved by the post
master-reneral on or prior 20 June
10th 1919. shan continue in force
for a period not 10 exceed four
months after this act takes effect.
unless sooner modified or changed
by the public authorities. state. rnu-
gs1teiNtrl or Z, IRE ~ So ra~i1f contraf
or jurisdiction OF tolls, CHARGED AMI
rates. or by contrast or voluntary re
duction
So. Subsequent 80 Y he return of the
compauv to its owners the council
and board Of aldermen of tho city OF
Richmond purp0Ftia@ to act under
the authority of thc proviso above
quoted. passed a Joint resolution re-
establishing the schedule Of rates
agreed upon bv the city and the com
pany IN the year lah1 whcS = fran
chise TO the petitioners predecessor
n title vas granted ~ the city being
The schedule 81 rates in effect in the
city nrior n the assumption of con
troll by tho federal government It
IS the legality of this assumption Of
aUthorirT on nc rart of thc citV
which Is Involved in this inquiry.
/. on the 25th day Of July OF this
wear the Chesapeake and Potomac
Telephone CoTpaaY Of Virginia filed
its petition asking Cor an increase
in rates throughout the state, and
UPON the passage of the said resolu
ton ~ the authorities of the city Of
Richmo nd undertaking to re-estab-
fish the rates as they existed prior TO
the order OF the postm aster- general
the company, by motion upon its pc
tition filed as aforesaid. asked for
Immediate consideration of said petit
ton so far as the city of Richmond
was concerned, and that it be al
lowed to continue the rates as fixed
by the postmaster enoral pending
he investigation by the commission
as 10 the reasonableness of its pro-
posed increase in rates. Upon this
motion the city was summoned to
answer, and it appeared md filed its
answer. denying the jurisdiction of
the commission but asserting that its
rights were fixed and finally protect
ed by the contract when on October
18th, 1901, its franchise was granted
TO the predecessor OF the present
company. The question of the juris-
dictton was ably and deliberately
argued by counsel for the company
and by the assistant attorney for the
city of Richmond. In addition,
lengthy arguments were made by
brief on behalf OF both the company
and the city, and numerous authori-
Ties cited from this and other states.
In our view. however, tho necessary
discussion OF the question involved
although OF vital Importance Is con-
fined to narrow limits.
That the state has power TO con-
troll and regulate all public service
corporations lis no longer an open
question tn this country" 1t has been
uniformly SO hold by tho highest
courts. both state and federal Nor
folk & Portsmouth Belt Line Rail-
road v, the Commonwealth, 1os Va
ass; Winchester, &c r. R. v. Com
monwealth, 106 Va. 264, 273; Mum
v. Illinois, - u. s. 113; Smith v.
Smith. SO U. S. 466, and numerous
other authorities In our state this
power has been conferred by the or
gantc law, 20 Tar as tho purposes OF