Evening star., 1947-03-01
NJ J. "a
Fec Hearing Sci

wi lClCPnVllc
Rate Violations
Two Stote Companies
y Challenge Federal
Agency's Jurisdiction
Charged with premature rate
raises between Washington subur-
ban areas in Virginia and those oi
Maryland, the Chesapeake g. Pc.
tomac Telephone Cos. of both States
:, have been ordered to explain viola.
tions of a Federal Communications
! Commission suspension order.
j. B. Morrison, vice president ano
r general manager of the companies
said the rates were instituted or
order of the Maryland Public Service
Commission dated February 1 ano
on order Of the Virginia State Cor.
: poration Commission dated January
16. Both orders followed public
hearings before the State commits
sions, he pointed out.
i A new order by the FEC directs
the companies and their officers tc
appear at hearing at 10 am
March Is to show cause why the
Federal body should not:
l. Apply to a United States Dis
trict Court for a writ of manda-
mus commanding the companies to
comply with the Federal Communi-
cations Act.
2. Apply to a Federal court for
an injunction for enforcement OF
an FEC order of February IA
suspending proposed rate increases
Civil Suit on Forfeitures.
3. Request United States district
attorneys to prosecute to enforce
compliance with the Federal Com
munications Act and for punishment
of violations.
4. Institute civil suit to re-
cover forfeitures.
S. Request the attorney general
to institute action for violation of
the Federal criminal code because
of alleged Misrepresentation of the
effective dates of the new rate
schedules to the FEC when in
truth and fact said company and
its officers, agents and representa-
tives knew that the rate increases
would be made effective prior to
that date"
Actions Almost Identical.
Nearly identical actions were filed
against the c. & P. Telephone Co
of Virginia and the C. & P. Tele-
phone Co. of Baltimore City. The
latter serves suburban Maryland
areas.
The telephone company already
has placed some increases in ef-
feet ard is placing others in oper-
alton, depending upon a rotating
system. of billing, the company's S
representative here declared. The
FEC action is not directed against
the c. g. P. Co. of the District of
Columbia, which has not announced
plans for rate changes.
1T is obvious that conflict exists
between the State commissions and
the Federal Communications Com
mission as to which has jurisdiction
over these rates." Mr.. Morrison said.
1.-THE company's position is that the
State commissions have jurisdiction.
In similar case in Kansas City
involving the Southwestern Bell
Telephone Co. and the Federal
Communications Commission, the
Federal Court decided in 1912 that
jurisdiction was vested in the State
commissions. -...
Probe Followed Suspension.
According to the FEC order, the
Maryland company filed its revised
tariff schedule on February II to
become effective March 13 between
points in that State and those in
Virginia in the Washington Metro
politan Area. On February IA the
FEC suspended operation of the
proposed increases until June 10
and ordered a hearing for March
IS. The suspension order required
that no changes be made effective
in the meantime unless by special
permission of the FEC.
The FEC began an investigation
into the rates charged by the Vir-
ginia, Maryland and District COM
panies after its suspension order
was entered.
The Virginia respondent is
charged by the FEC with having
filed its revised tariff schedules on
January 20 and February IL to
be effective February 20 and March
13, respectively. An order also was
issued for the Virginia utility on
February IA postponing the in
creases until May 20 and hear
ing set at the same time as the
Maryland company was to be heard.
Increases Held Premature.
Both companies are charged with
already having made increases for
interstate calls without having on
file with this commission effective
tariff schedules showing such
charges and in disregard of ef-
fective tariff schedules on file with
the commission y"
c. g., P. of Virginia knew that
increased charges would be made
effective before" February 20 despite
prior representation to the FEC and
the public that this was the effec-
tive date, the commission charged,
adding that it was thereby misin-
formed concerning the facts as to
when the new increased charges
were to become effective so that it
was unable to take timely action in
enforcement of the Communications
Act"
y The same charges were made
against the Maryland company con-
corning it's March Is effective date.