No. 240. C. H. Hartley, Oshkosh, Wis. WHOLESALE TELEPHONE RATES. June 27, 1908. Inquiry as to whether it is lawful for a telephone company to offer reduced rates as the amount of service used increases, such as allowing a lower rate to a company or firm using $75 worth of tolls a month than to one who uses only $50 worth, assuming that the tariff covering this arrangement is regularly published. That such a rate would be contrary to the spirit of the Public Utilities Law. Held: No. 241. Michigan State Telephone Co., Detroit, Mich. JURISDICTION OF COMMISSION. June 20, 1908. The above named telephone company made application for authority to increase certain rates, the reason being that some of the business of the company goes over Wisconsin lines. Held: That an application by a foreign corporation for authority to increase rates is a matter outside of the jurisdiction of the Commission. No. 242. Briggsville & Big Springs Telephone Co., Briggsville, Wis. CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES LAW. June 27, 1908. A conference was held between the Commission and representatives of the above named company, concerning several matters arising through the enactment of the Public Utilities Law. The following questions were discussed and answered: 1. Is it an unjust discrimination to charge a stockholder 10 cts. per message and a non-stockholder 15 cts. per message? Held: That it is unlawful to exact a higher rate from subscribers who are not stockholders, directors and officers than from subscribers who are stockholders, directors and officers; that the subscriber who is a stockholder has no rights or privileges which are denied to the subscriber who is not a stockholder, and the stockholder must look to the profits of the business for his return on his investment. 2. Is it permissible to charge part of the subscribers a message fee and part of them a flat rate for all the service furnished them? Held: That the same rates must be held out to all persons under similar circumstances and conditions. 3. Are any superior rights possessed by persons who own interests in connecting lines, and are also stockholders in the main company, over other persons? Held: That the former must pay the same rates as the latter; and it is also unlawful to give any superior privileges to persons who compose an unincorporated mutual farmer company because they are stockholders in the main company, a share in the profits of the company is all the benefit which stockholders can have which is not enjoyed by the general subscriber. 4. Is a connection contract legal by which one company retains all the tolls of messages originating on its line? Held: That such contract is not prohibited by law. No. 243. H. A. Price, Markesan, Wis. FREE PUBLIC TELEPHONE SERVICE. June 26, 1908. Inquiry whether a free local service over a telephone instrument in a hotel, for which the proprietor of the hotel pays the regular rate, but to which a "Gray Pay Station" for collection. of long distance tolls is attached, is legal. Held: The matter is one for regulation by the telephone company itself. No. 244. June 24, 1908. Perry-Hollandale Telephone Co., Hollandale, Wis. INQUIRY CONCERNING TELEPHONE DISCRIMINATION. The above named telephone company, having toll line connections between Hollandale, Blanchardville and Perry, advised the Commission that it charged toll from Blanchardville, while from Hollandale and Perry no toll was charged, and the company desired to be advised whether this practice was discriminatory. Held: That the law requires that all subscribers under like circumstances and conditions must be treated alike, and that the situation and practice described does not constitute discrimination, so long as all the subscribers at Hollandale and Perry have free toll service over those lines, and all the subscribers at Blanchardville are charged toll service. No. 245. Whitewater Water Works Co., Whitewater, Wis. CONTRIBUTIONS BY UTILITIES. June 20, 1908. Inquiry as to whether it is permissible, under the Public Utilities Law, for a public utility to make contributions for civic, benevolent and charitable enterprises, other than of a political character. Held: That there is nothing in the Public Utilities Law to authorize the Commission to permit or sanction the making of contributions for any purposes by public utilities within this state, but that there is nothing in the law to prevent officers, directors and stockholders of public utility corporations, in their, individual capacity, from contributing for charitable and other worthy purposes to the full extent of their charitable impulses and the size of their purses. No. 246. Matt Stapleton, Rhinelander, Wis. ALLEGED OVERCHARGE FOR LIGHTING. June 25, 1908. Complainant herein advised the Commission of a controversy between himself and the Rhinelander Lighting Co. over a bill rendered for service. The Commission was unable to comprehend the exact situation in controversy and requested complainant to furnish additional facts, which complainant failed to do. PART VI. Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity. Under the provisions of ch. 454, Laws of 1907, no railroad corporation shall commence the construction of any proposed line of railroad in the state, until it shall have obtained from the Railroad Commission a certificate that public convenience and necessity require the construction of such railroad. The application shall be accompanied by complete maps and profiles of the proposed road. A public hearing shall be held, and arguments heard for and against the granting of such certificate. Upon the granting of such certificate, the applicant railroad shall, before commencing construction, submit to the Commission a condensed specification of the kind and character of construction that it proposes to install. Upon receiving such specification, the Commission shall examine same and determine whether the proposed construction will be adequate for securing and protecting the public safety, and shall grant an order approving such specification. The Commission shall also, after public hearing, determine the manner in which such applicant railroad shall cross the lines of other railroads, prescribe the kind of protective appliances to be installed at such crossings, and fix the proportion of expense of constructing such crossing and the expense of operating the safety devices ordered installed, which shall be paid by the interested railroads. Upon the completion of the construction, and before opening the line for public service, the Commission shall examine, or cause to be examined, such line, and if found to be constructed in accordance with the approved specifications and in a manner to conserve and protect the public safety, an order authorizing the operation of the line shall be granted. Under the provisions of this law, the following applications were disposed of during the year covered by this report: No. 1. In re APPLICATION OF WISCONSIN NORTHERN RY. Co. Application was filed July 1, 1907, for a certificate of convenience and necessity authorizing the construction of a railroad from a point in township 31 north, of range 14 east, to a point in township 36 north, of range 14 east, and to extend the line of the applicant from a point of connection with the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry. Co., in township 37 north, of range 13 east, north to the state line. The hearing was held on July 30, 1907, C. H. Hartley and M. J. Wallrich appearing for the applicant, and no one appearing in opposition. On the date of the hearing a certificate was issued, authorizing the construction of the extension of the line of railroad of the applicant as follows: commencing at the north line of sec. 16, township 31 north, of range 14 east, thence in a northerly direction to the south line of sec. 29, township 36 north, of range 13 east. On May 19, 1908, the specification of the construction of the extension was approved by the Commission. No. 2. In re APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN WISCONSIN RY. Co. Application filed July 1, 1907, praying that a certificate be issued for the construction of an extension of its system from Madison, through the village of McFarland, to the city of Stoughton. Such extension to be operated as an interurban electric railway. The matter was set for hearing for July 30, 1907. Prior to such time the application was withdrawn, and the application mentioned in No. 4 was filed. No. 3. In re APPLICATION OF EASTERN RY. CO. OF MINNESOTA. Application filed July 22, 1907, praying that a certificate issue that public convenience and necessity require the construç |