lishment of coin boxes or public telephone booths. If it is deemed good business to thus attract trade, the subscriber should not expect that other telephone users will assist in bearing the financial burden. Telephone service is the only commodity that the company has to sell, and it should not be expected to give it away without charge or compensation, any more than a merchant would be expected to contribute of his wares.

This rule has been well established in numerous Commission decisions, a few of which we quote as follows:

"It is a uniform practice in the telephone business to charge the subscriber renting a telephone instrument for all toll messages, including messages from non-subscribers, originating at that instrument. Subscribers should either require non-subscribers to pay the toll rate or refuse to permit such non-subscribers to use their 'phone. In any event, the rule should provide that the subscriber must be responsible for the toll messages and other non-subscriber messages originating at his telephone instrument." Dakota Central Telephone Company, South Dakota Board of Railroad Commissioners, 68 C. L. 412.

"The Company complains of its inability, in many instances, to collect for long distance toll charges transmitted from both city and country stations. Every subscriber is responsible for toll charges incurred at his station. Should he not desire to be personally responsible for such charges, he should ascertain from the central office operator the amount due and collect the same from the party putting in the call." Big Timber Home Telephone Company, Montana Public Service Commission, 79 C. L. 220.

"It is just as essential that the utility be protected against unreasonable demands by the public as it is that the utility be made to comply with the reasonable demands of the public." Coos Telephone Company, New Hampshire Public Service Commission, 81 C. L. 1008.

"Subscribers will be held responsible for all toll charges on messages originating at their homes or place of business." 4 C Telephone Company, Illinois Public Utilities Commission, 109 C. L. 1225.

"It is a well settled rule of law that every public utility has the right to make and enforce reasonable rules and regulations with which its patrons may be required to conform. This principle was enunciated by this Board in Bradley Beach v. Monmouth County Water Company, 5 N. J. B. P. U. C. R. 36, 39, in a case involving an attack upon the rules and regulations and practices of the water company." Quick Action Collection Company v. New York Telephone Company, New Jersey Board of Public Utility Commissioners, 102 C. L. 285.

[Ar

. L. 148]

In the case of Johnson v. The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, 159 Pac. 526, the Utah Supreme Court said,

"It is not disputed that the defendant had the right to make reasonable rules and regulations concerning the use and service of its telephones."

This is a case where the subscriber had agreed that his telephone should be used only for personal communications of the subscriber, his employees or immediate household upon the subscriber's business. The subscriber violated the contract, and the court held that the telephone company would not be required to reinstate the telephone where it was shown that there had been misuse.

The tariffs of the company on file with this Commission provide for the installation of coin boxes or telephone booths at rates which would not be materially, if any, higher than the subscribers are now paying for business telephones, and we think it is incumbent upon them to adopt this method if they are unable to properly police their telephones and prevent the placing of long distance calls. Indeed, it is possible that this plan might work to the financial advantage of the subscriber, inasmuch as commission is allowed on collections in excess of a certain specified minimum.

We have carefully considered all of the evidence in this case, and are of the opinion, and find, that it is not feasible or practicable, to require the telephone company to establish "no toll" service, and that to do so would be inimical to the interests of those subscribers who do not require such service, and in accordance with this finding the proceedings herein are, and will be, discontinued and dismissed.

It is hereby ordered, That this case be, and it is hereby, dismissed.

Dated at Phoenix, Arizona, this twenty-seventh day of February, 1924.

FLORIDA.

Railroad Commissioners.

In re APPLICATION OF THE PENINSULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY TO INCREASE RATES.

File No. 4253-Order No. 793.

Decided March 11, 1924.

Increase in Rates Authorized.

ORDER,

Pursuant to Notice No. 329, dated December 21, 1923, the above-mentioned matter came on for formal hearing before the Railroad Commissioners of the State of Florida in the city hall at St. Petersburg, Florida, on the sixteenth day of January, 1924, at 10 o'clock, a. m.; and then and there appeared W. G. Brorein, president, A. B. Stewart, general auditor, J. J. Lunsford, counsel, all appearing for the Peninsular Telephone Company. No one appeared for the public.

And said Commissioners at said hearing took the testimony of witnesses under oath, and heard all parties desiring to be heard; and do find from the evidence submitted that a revision of the telephone rates at St. Petersburg exchange should be made.

Wherefore, it is ordered, That the following schedule of rates is authorized at said exchange:

PENINSULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY, ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA.

Exchange area is bounded on the north by Thirtieth Avenue, on the south by Lakeview Avenue, on the east by Tampa Bay, on the northwest by Sixteenth Street and Seventh Avenue, on the south-west by Sixteenth Street and Ninth Avenue, on the west by Twentieth Street.

It is further ordered, That the rates hereinabove authorized shall become effective at 12:01 o'clock A. M., on the first day of April, 1924; and said company is hereby required to file its tariffs accordingly with this Commission on or before said date.

Amended by supplemental order to read 50 cents.

Done and ordered by the Railroad Commissioners of the State of Florida, in session at their office in the city of Tallahassee, Florida, this eleventh day of March, 1924.*

On the same day the Commission authorized the following rates for service at Plant City: business, one-party, $4.50, four-party, $3.50, extension, $1.00, intercommunicating trunks, $4.50, intercommunicating stations, $1.25; residence, one-party, $3.00, four-party, $2.00, extension, $1.00; rates outside exchange base rate area within zone three miles beyond city limits: business, four-party, $4.00; residence, four-party, $2.50; within six miles beyond city limits: business, party-selective, $4.25; residence, party-selective, $2.75; within eight miles beyond city limits: business, party-selective, $4.50; residence, party-selective, $3.00, In re Peninsular Telephone Company. (File No. 4254.)

[F