its exchange at Caldwell, Kansas, and the exchange of the Bluff City Mutual Telephone Company. October 17, 1923. In re APPLICATION OF THE SUBSCRIBERS OF THE COFFEY COUNTY TELEPHONE COMPANY REQUESTING THAT THE COFFEY COUNTY TELEPHONE COMPANY MAKE AN EXTRA CHARGE OF $1.00 PER MONTH FOR BUSINESS TELEPHONES SERVING MORE THAN ONE BUSINESS, AND AN EXTRA CHARGE OF 50 CENTS PER MONTH FOR RESIDENCE TELEPHONES FURNISHING SERVICE TO MORE THAN ONE FAMILY. Docket No. 5927. Decided October 23, 1923. Charge for Extra Service Authorized. ORDER. Now on this twenty-third day of October, 1923, the above-entitled proceeding comes on for consideration and order; and the Commission being duly advised in the premises, finds that the Coffey County Telephone Company of Waverly, Kansas, joins in said application and asks that the same be granted. The Commission further finds that the rates herein petitioned for cover a new class of service in Waverly and that the same are reasonable and should be granted. It is, therefore, by the Commission considered and ordered, That the Coffey County Telephone Company of Waverly, Kansas, be, and it is hereby, authorized and permitted to file and enforce a schedule of rates providing for an extra charge of $1.00 per month for business telephones serving more than one business and an extra charge of 50 cents per month for each residence telephone furnishing service to more than one family. October 23, 1923. C. L. 144] In re COMPLAINT OF A. H. REED, MAYOR OF BARNES v. BARNES TELEPHONE COMPANY, AND INQUIRY IN REGARD TO SERVICE TO BLUE RAPIDS, WASHINGTON, HANOVER, GREENLEAF, WATERVILLE AND MARYSVILLE. Docket No. 5549. Decided October 30, 19.23. Agreement Between Companies to Furnish Free Exchange of Service ORDER. Now on this twentieth day of July, 1923, this cause comes on for hearing at Barnes, Kansas, before C. E. Rugh, Commissioner, and thereupon there appeared in said cause A. E. Reed for the city of Barnes, H. F. Rodick for the Barnes Telephone Company, A. F. Geyer for the Waterville Telephone Company, J. H. Husck for the Washington Mutual Telephone Company, and Dr. Armstrong for the Greenleaf Telephone Company; and it is shown. to the Commission and made to appear that the United Telephone Company and the Consolidated Telephone Company have both been notified of said hearing as required by law and that neither of said companies makes any appearance at said hearing at the time and place set for said hearing; and thereupon all of the parties interested in said matter introduce their evidence before the Commissioner, after which said cause is taken under advisement. And now on this thirtieth day of October, 1923, this cause comes on for final hearing and order by the Commission; and the Commission after considering all of the evidence introduced in said cause and after being fully advised in the premises, finds that the Consolidated Telephone Company and the United Telephone Company have been duly served with notice of the hearing of said cause as required by law and that they have had full information as to the matters involved in said cause and full opportunity to be present and be heard in the hearing thereof. And the Commission further finds from the evidence: 1. That the Washington Telephone Company is a duly organized company having a telephone exchange in the city of Washington, Kansas, and serving only subscribers in the city of Washington and within a radius of one-half mile outside of the boundaries of said city. The Commission further finds from the evidence that the Washington Mutual Telephone Company has an exchange in the city of Washington and that its subscribers are only those that are connected with rural lines running out into the country outside of the corporate boundary of the city of Washington, and that both of said telephone companies have subscribers in the territory included in the half-mile limit immediately outside of the corporate boundaries of the said city of Washington. The Commission further finds from the evidence that on the twelfth day of June, 1916, the said Washington Telephone Company and the said Washington Mutual Telephone Company entered into a written agreement, which said written agreement was filed in the office of this Commission on the seventeenth day of July, 1917, and duly approved by this Commission. That one of the provisions of said written agreement reads as follows: "The said parties agree to jointly maintain connection between their respective central offices in the city of Washington and furnish free exchange to the patrons of each other's systems (not including toll service), the wires between said central office to be enclosed in a cable. The expense of maintaining such connection shall be shared and paid equally by said parties." The Commission further finds from the evidence that said provision of said agreement has been substantially complied with by the said two companies operating in the city of Washington. There has been some evidence of some complaints introduced in this cause to the effect that the operators of the [] C. L. 144] Washington telephone exchange refuse to give connections for parties calling the exchange of the Washington Mutual Telephone Company over toll lines connected with said exchange. The Commission finds from the evidence that there is no obligation on the part of the Washington Telephone Company to give any such connection with its patrons to answer long distance or toll calls which come into the exchange of the Washington Mutual Telephone Company, and that there is no obligation on the part of the Washington Mutual Telephone Company to give connections with its subscribers of calls coming over the toll lines into the Washington telephone exchange. And the Commission further finds that the request of certain persons, who testified in this cause, for an order of this Commission, requiring the Washington Telephone Company to transmit toll messages coming through the Washington Mutual Telephone Company's exchange to its subscribers should be, and the same hereby is, denied. 2. The Commission further finds from the evidence that under either an oral or written agreement made many years ago and which has been carried out until recently by the custom and practice of the Greenleaf Telephone Company and the Barnes Telephone Company, the said two telephone companies have maintained a trunk line between the exchange at Greenleaf and the exchange at Barnes, and that both of said exchanges have been transmitting messages between the two said exchanges for certain tolls for many years last past; that on or about the fifteenth day of July, 1920, the United Telephone Company entered into an agreement with the Greenleaf telephone exchange, which said agreement was in writing, and one of the terms of which said agreement was as follows, to wit: "Each of the parties will make suitable switchboard connections to furnish direct communication between the customers of the second party connected with said exchange within the territory shown on the map or sketch marked Exhibit A, and the customers of the first party connected with its system or those of its connecting companies, but second party shall not, without the written authority of the first party, make any connections between the toll lines of the first party and the toll lines of any other persons or corporation." The Commission finds from the evidence that the United Telephone Company has toll lines leading from Blue Rapids and Marysville and from Greenleaf to its exchange in the city of Washington. Testimony was introduced in this case complaining that the United company's exchange at Washington refused to take toll calls which came into the Greenleaf exchange over the trunk line jointly owned by the owners of the Greenleaf and Barnes exchanges. The Commission further finds from the evidence that there is an independent trunk line owned by the Washington Mutual Telephone Company extending from the Washington Mutual exchange to the Greenleaf telephone exchange and that the operators of the Greenleaf telephone exchange can switch all calls that come over the trunk line between Greenleaf and Barnes to the Washington Mutual Telephone Company's exchange; and the Commission finds from the evidence that the said United Telephone Company should not be required to accept toll messages to be transmitted by it from the said town of Greenleaf to its Washington exchange unless such messages come over its own toll lines into the city of Greenleaf, and that an order to such effect would be unreasonable and should be, and the same hereby is, denied. 3. The Commission further finds that there is a trunk line owned by the Barnes telephone exchange and the Waterville telephone exchange existing between said two companies, and that there is a trunk line owned by the owner of the Waterville exchange and the owners of the Blue Rapids Telephone Company at Blue Rapids, Kansas, and that on the first day of January, 1914, a written contract was entered into between the Blue Rapids Telephone Company and the Waterville telephone exchange, a part of which contract is as follows, to wit: "What the parties hereto, in order to maintain a toll line and toll service between their respective telephone systems, have contracted and agreed in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived as follows: [Kan |