REFERENCES

BENNETT, A. R. The telephone systems of the continent of Europe. 1895.

Comparative discussion of the services and the general operation of the telephone systems of Europe.

BURGESS, WALTER. Report on the foreign situation before the special telephone commission of the Chicago city council. April 3, 1907.

CANADA. Select committee on telephone systems, 1905, 2 vols.

Contains minutes of proceedings; minutes of evidence; interior reports; synopsis of exhibits.

CARMICHAEL, E. G. M. Law of the telegraph, telephone and submarine cable. England, 1904.

Contains the law of England relating to telephones and the agreements existing between the National telephone company and the Postmaster General of England.

CHICAGO.

Report of special telephone commission to the city council of Chicago.

1907.

Discussion of interchange of service between telephone companies.

CINCINNATI, (OHIO). Committee's report and action in council in Cincinnati case. 1906.

Contains report of committee of city council of Cincinnati on telephones, telegraphs and conduits.

JONES, S. W. Treatise on the law of telegraph and telephone companies. 1906.

UNITED STATES. Department of Commerce and Labor. Monthly consular and trade reports. March, 1907. p. 1983-4.

METHODS OF ENACTMENT

Interchange of service between telephone companies has been required by constitutional and legislative enactments.

Constitutional

Many of the states allow or require interchange of service between telephone companies by provisions. in the constitution.

Compare the constitutional provisions of Alabama, Const. 1901, sec. 239; Idaho, Const. 1888, art. 11, sec. 13; Kentucky, Const. 1891, sec. 199: Montana, Const. 1888, art. 25, sec. 14; Oklahoma, Const. 1907, art. 9, sec. 5; Washington, Const. 1888, art. 12, sec. 19.

Legislative

The legislature in some of the states and provinces. requires interchange of service between telephone companies by direct enactment or by delegating the power to require such interchange to an administrative commission or board.

Compare the laws of Connecticut, Gen. St. 1902, sec. 3912; Indiana, Rev. St. 1901, sec. 5529; Louisiana, laws of 1904, p. 28; Maine, Rev. St. 1903, c. 55, sec. 12; Maryland, Code of public and general laws, 1904, art. 23, sec. 336; Missouri, Ann. St. 1906, sec. 1255; Montana, Civil Code, 1895, sec. 1001; New York, laws of 1890, c. 566, art. 8, sec. 103; Ohio, Bates Ann. Rev. St. 1787-1906, sec. 3462, sec. 3471; South Carolina, laws of 1904, p. 496; South Dakota, laws of 1907, c. 239: Texas, laws of 1907, p. 462-3; Vermont, St. 1894, sec. 4257: Virginia, laws of 1906, c. 310, sec. 2: Saskatchewan (Canada), laws of 1908, c. 6, sec. 17, 18 and c. 7, sec. 14, 15.

HISTORY OF INTERCHANGE OF

SERVICE

Foreign countries

In most of the foreign countries the telephone system is owned and operated by the government and there is intercommunication on the entire system.

England. The government owns the trunk lines and private or municipal corporations own the local exchanges. An agreement exists between the Postmaster General and the National Telephone company which provides for the intercommunication between the two systems. The trunks for connecting the exchanges are provided by the Postmaster General, the wires of the postoffice extending to the wall of the building in which the exchange of the National Telephone company is situated.

Italy.2 The government owns the trunk lines and connects private systems. The telephone system of the Scieta Telefonica per l'Alta Italia, which controls several companies in upper Italy, connects with the national and the Swiss government lines.

1 Report of Walter Burgess on the foreign situation, before the special telephone commission of the Chicago city council. April 3. 1907.

U. S. Department of commerce and labor. Monthly consular and trade reports. March, 1907. p. 183-4.

Sweden.1 The telephone systems in Sweden are principally government owned, but there are a few systems privately owned, similar to co-operative systems in the United States. There is, however, one large private company in Stockholm which controls the systems of the Bell Telephone company of Stockholm and the Stockholm General Telephone company. Both companies operate in conjunction and are practically one system. In 1889 the government built an exchange in Stockholm and began active competition with the private company. Intercommunication was given between the private and the government systems until 1903, for which a charge was made of 2.7 cents per message. In 1903 difficulty arose as to the charge for such connection.

The goverment wished to reduce the price and the company desired to retain the charge as it then existed. The question became very acute and resulted in the discontinuance of the intercommunication. The city authorities refused further grants of rights of way to either company until the connection was renewed. As the result of the controversy and the great demand brought to bear by the public the companies established an "Exchange Bureau,"-each company renting a phone of the other and employing an operator to transmit each other's messages for which the goverment made a charge of 1.37 cents and the private company 2.7 cents per message which rates correspond with the pay station rates, of each

1 Report of Walter Burgess on the foreign situation, before the special telephone commission of the Chicago city council, April 3, 1907.

company respectively, for a three minute conversation.

United States

Interchange of service by telephone companies is accomplished either by the transmission of each other's messages or by actual physical connection of their respective lines.

Interchange of service in the toll traffic has been furnished for many years whenever satisfactory contracts could be entered into by noncompetitive companies.

Compulsory interchange between competitive as well as noncompetitive companies has been agitated for the last ten years, or practically ever since the appearance of competition in the telephone field.

As early as 1897 a bill (No. 357 S.) was introduced in the Wisconsin legislature requiring toll companies to furnish connection with their toll lines to local exchange companies. Since that time bills requiring such connections and also connections between local exchanges of competitive companies have been introduced every regular session of the Wisconsin legislature.

Many of the other states have had the same experience. Bills have been introduced in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas.