Evening star., 1949-10-25
Court Demands
Phone Removal
Rule
Competent Evidence
Before Action Asked
By Judge Morris


Commission rule changed to re-
quire a fair hearing and compe-
tent evidence against telephone
subscriber before his telephone
can be removed.
The jurists demand for more
evidence in phone removal cases
created more headaches for United
States Attorney George Morris
Fay, whose campaign to remove
300 telephones from suspected
gambling law violators has been
beset by legal technicalities.
After hearing day-long argu-
ments attacking and defending
the PUC-approved regulation for
telephone removals, Judge Morris
yesterday gave opposing counsel
10 days to clarity the language of
the order.
Effective Since April.
The regulation, under. which
Mr.. Fay got telephones removed,
provides that telephone service
will not be furnished if any law
enforcement agency advises the
service is being used or will be
used to violate the law or if the
phone company receives other evil
dence of the same thing.
Effective since April 18. the
phone company rule was attacked
by Attorney John Ingoldsby, rep
resenting Mr.. and Mrs. Harry
Katz. 1859 Walbridge place NV
The Katz couple faced loss OF
phone service in Mr.. Fay's anti
gambling crusade.
After a hearing in August, the
PUG directed the phone company
to revise the rule to provide that
the company shall notify the af :
fected subscriber of his right to
apply to the PUG "for a deter
mination Of the applicability" OF
the rule.
When Judge Morris criticized
the language of the order as vague
and uncertain, he was told it
means the telephone subscriber is
entitled to fair hearing.
why didn't they say so, If that
is what is meant?" Judge Morris
retorted.
Clear Language Asked.
Judge Morris told the lawyers
to see if they could agree on
language that would insure a
hearing by the PUG to determine
if there has been competent evil
dence to show unlawful use of the
phone. This would place the bur-
den Of proof on the phone COM
pany.
The jurist strongly indicated
he thought mere notice from a
law-enforcement agency to the
phone company that a telephone
was being used Illegally was in
sufficient proof.
1T is a novel idea to me-" he
said, that law enforcement Of
f1cers, who are not permitted to
prosecute without an indictment
by a grand jury can merely, by
request. bring about the loss of a
public utility-a telephone-with-
out any evidence.
II can't believe the law officers
Of this jurisdiction themselves be-
lieve they can legally do this. The
telephone company is in duty
bound to investigate for itself and
is put on notice. That it can act
on a mere request is unthinkable
and inconsistent with our notion
Of government"
"On Horns of Dilemma"
Edmund L. Jones, attorney for
the Chesapeake g. Potomac Tele-
phone Co.. told Judge Morris that
If the phone company does not
act on information Of alleged law
violations given it by enforce
ment officers. it would be under
jeopardy of indictment. There
have been cases, he recalled, in
Maryland and West Virginia when
the phone company was actually
indicted.
Mr.. Jones told the court the
phone company Is ION the horns
Of dilemma" and wants an off,
cial determination of how far 1t
is supposed to go in these cases.
The case of Mr.. and Mrs. Katz
was held up by the court pending
the outcome of the attorneys
efforts to rewrite the regulation.