MISSOURI. Public Service Commission. In re SUSPENSION OF RATES OF THE SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY AT ITS WEBSTER GROVES-KIRKWOOD EXCHANGE. Case No. 2697. Decided December 31, 1923. Increased Rates Heretofore Established Continued in Effect. ORDER. It appearing that the Commission, after due investigation, and after the company named above had submitted satisfactory evidence that its rates for telephone service as charged by it at its above-named exchange were inadequate, unjust and unreasonable, did, by its order of record in the above-entitled case on the twenty-eighth day of September, 1921,* permit said company to put certain increased rates into effect for a temporary period under certain terms and conditions, and by subsequent orders† herein extended said temporary period to January 1, 1924, and It now appearing, further, that the above-named company did show by its verified report on the basis of one year, that the revenues from the operation had not been sufficient to pay an unreasonable rate of return upon the investment, It is, therefore, ordered, 1. That the above-mentioned company be permitted to continue to charge the present existing rates now on file with this Commission as maximum rates, until otherwise ordered by the Commission; that the Commission retains full and continuing jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter of this cause to change, modify or amend said rate schedule at any time *See Commission Leaflet No. 119, p. 1154. See Commission Leaflet No. 133, p. 68. C. L. 146] upon the files and record evidence now before the Commission or that may hereinafter be adduced by the Commission. Ordered, 2. That this order shall be in full force and effect from and after January 10, 1924. Ordered, 3. That the secretary of the Commission shall forthwith serve upon the parties hereto a certified copy of this order, and that the company shall on or before the effective date hereof notify the Commission, in the manner prescribed in Section 23 of the Public Service Commission Law, whether the terms of this order are accepted and will be obeyed. December 31, 1923. A. H. HOUSE v. JOHNSON COUNTY HOME TELEPHONE COMPANY. Case No. 3784. Decided January 2, 1924. Application for Installation of Telephone in Office of Mutual Telephone Companies Denied. REPORT. A. H. House, complainant, asks for an order requiring the Johnson County Home Telephone Company, defendant herein, to install and maintain a telephone at his place of business at Knobnoster for use for local and long distance telephone service. Complainant avers that on the sixth day of September, 1923, he requested defendant to install a telephone in his place of business at Knobnoster and that defendant refused to do so. Complainant avers that he is willing to pay the toll and exchange rates charged other subscribers. Defendant by its answer says that the complainant is the manager of the Knobnoster Mutual Telephone Com pany and that he did request defendant to install a telephone in the office of the said Knobnoster Mutual Telephone Company and that defendant has offered to do so on certain conditions, to which the complainant has refused to agree and which are as follows: That the defendant will install and maintain a telephone at the place requested by A. H. House at the usual charges made for similar service, provided that said complainant will not transfer or permit the transfer of messages through the switchboard of the Knobnoster Mutual Telephone Company to or from the subscribers of the defendant or its toll connections. Defendant asks to establish a rule containing the foregoing conditions to be applied to all patrons. Defendant says that complainant has refused to accept telephone service under the said conditions as tendered by it, which defendant believes to be lawful and reasonable, and, therefore, defendant has refused and still continues to refuse to install one of its telephones for the use of the complainant unless the same be used subject to the conditions as set out above. A hearing was held at the office of the Commission on the fifteenth day of November, 1923, and the case submitted for decision upon the evidence. The defendant has for sometime been engaged in furnishing telephone service for hire to the public at Knobnoster and other points in Johnson County, Missouri. It furnishes local telephone service at Knobnoster, has toll lines, and also has connections with long distance or toll lines of the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and the Kansas City Long Distance Telephone Company. Defendant charges $2.25 per month for a business telephone and $1.25 per month for a residence telephone. Defendant's subscribers are entitled to use their stations for the toll service connected with its switchboard upon the payment of the charges for that kind of service, in addition to the monthly rates for exchange service. [Mo. C. L. 146] In the year 1921, the Public Service Commission, after a hearing, authorized the defendant to charge higher monthly rates for telephone service at Knobnoster. At that time the defendant supplied all telephone service at Knobnoster and furnished service to 540 subscribers in the town and near-by. Switching service was then furnished by defendant to 21 country lines, with 250 telephone subscribers living outside of Knobnoster. There was dissatisfaction among the patrons of the defendant with the higher rates and, as a result thereof, what is known as the Knobnoster Mutual Telephone Company was formed, which is not a telephone company for hire as defined by the Public Service Commission Law of this State, and hence, for that reason, said mutual company is not within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The Public Service Commission Law provides that telephone companies doing business for hire can not begin doing business without the consent of the Commission, and their rates and services are subject to control by the Commission. By organizing as a mutual company, telephone service is furnished to the members of the mutual company over which the Commission has no control. The Knobnoster Mutual Telephone Company now has 378 members in and about the town to whom it furnishes exchange service. The defendant now has 249 subscribers at Knobnoster, all of whom are in the town, except 75. The Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and the Kansas City Long Distance Telephone Company are not parties to this proceeding. The Southwestern Bell Telephone Company refused to give the Knobnoster Mutual Telephone Company connection with its lines. The complainant testified that he wanted the defendant to install a telephone for his own private use, and also for the purpose of transferring messages from subscribers for the mutual company service to subscribers for the defendant's service, and for transferring messages from the defend ant's subscribers to patrons of the mutual company, and for transferring toll messages to and from the subscribers for service of the mutual company through the defendant's switchboard and over its toll line connections upon the payment of the customary toll charges. The defendant stands ready to install a telephone for complainant for his own use at the rates charged other patrons, but complainant does not want it unless he can use it for transferring local and toll messages as set out above. Complainant contends that denial to him by the defendant of the services now sought constitutes unlawful discrimination against him. The Supreme Court held that the Commission is without jurisdiction over mutual telephone companies such as the Knobnoster Mutual Telephone Company, for the reason that the statute conferring upon the Commission authority in such matters, deals only with individuals or companies conducting a telephone business for the public for hire. In the same case the court held that the Commission had no authority to order a physical connection to be made for toll service between the lines of a mutual company, such as the Knobnoster Mutual Telephone Company, and the lines of a company giving long distance telephone or toll service for hire. State ex rel. Buffum Telephone Company v. Public Service Commission, 272 Mo. 627-644. In speaking of a suggestion that a physical connection with a mutual company was for service to the individuals rather than to the company, the court said in the Buffum Telephone Company case, supra, as follows: "The contention is vaguely made by appellant that the individual members of this company have, collectively, the right to demand the connection here under consideration. This contention is evidently based upon the assumption that numbers alone will establish the claim of public necessity. This is not true. Their mere numbers give them no more rights in the premises than a single individual would have under like circumstances. If A should demand that his private telephone be connected with the Buffum company, we may look in vain for authority in reason or the law for the exercise of such power by the Commission as will effect a compliance with this request. Granted to A, the right [Mo |