is contended by plaintiff that the use for these water heaters interferes with the peak-load,-that is, the lighting load, and consequently the above reasoning cannot apply. The answer to that in this case is that the evidence shows that the company has an abundance of surplus power even when the peak load is on. The evidence shows that this company has something like 2,300 lighting customers in the city of Pocatello, and that it has secured, after a lot of advertising and soliciting, only about 50 water heater customers. So, even at this low rate, it has made no great progress in securing this class of business. The reason why must be that the cost of installing this class of service and the rate is not yet sufficiently low to induce a broader use of the same. This is true, that if this class of service were cut out altogether (which result would inevitably follow the increasing of the rate to that advocated by plaintiff) the operating revenue of the company would be reduced just that much, and the rate for some other class of service might have to be increased to make up that loss, while the evidence shows that the additional expense for taking care of this class of service is very small. The plaintiff offered evidence to show that the lowest price it could afford to furnish gas was $1.20 per 1,000 cu. ft., and at that price it could compete in this class of service with the defendant, if the rate on electricity were increased to 1 cent per K. W. H. The manager of the plaintiff company arbitrarily fixed $1.20 per 1,000 cu. ft. He could not give the book value or an estimate of the physical value of plaintiff's plant; neither could he give any figures showing operating revenues or operating expenses. From the evidence so introduced this Commission would not be justified in finding that $1.20 per 1,000 cu. ft. is the lowest price for which plaintiff can afford to furnish that commodity, or that such rate would be reasonable. That being true we would hardly be justified in compelling defendant company to raise its rates 300 per cent for electrical energy for this class of service so as to enable the plaintiff company to compete with it in that service. This estimate of plaintiff as to cost per 1,000 cu. ft. for this service amounts to nothing more or less than a guess. It is possible that this Commission, after a thorough investigation into the question of a reasonable rate to be charged by plaintiff com pany, would find that a great reduction should be made from plaintiff's estimate. A rate voluntarily established by a public utility must be regarded as prima facie reasonable. Home Teleph. & Teleg. Co. v. Pacific Teleph. & Teleg. Co. P. U. R. 1915A, p. 687. That being true, the rate voluntarily established by defendant company for this class of service must be presumed to be reasonable, and the evidence introduced in this case is not suffcient to overcome that presumption. If this Commission should order the rate of defendant company for this class of service increased in the city of Pocatello, it would also have to order an increase in the same rate in all of the cities and towns served by defendant company and in all the cities and towns in southern Idaho served by the Great Shoshone & Twin Falls Water Power Company, as this lastnamed company has the same rate for this class of service in all points served by it. The defendant contends that the real question at issue is the reasonableness of defendant's rate for this class of service, and that the Commission has no jurisdiction to proceed, and in that connection relies on § 56 of the Public Utilities act, which reads as follows: "Section 56. Complaint may be made by the Commission of its own motion or by any corporation or person, cham.ber of commerce, board of trade, or any civic, commercial, mercantile, traffic, agricultural or manufacturing association or organization or any body politic or municipal corporation, by petition or complaint in writing, setting forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility including any rule, regulation or charge heretofore established or fixed by or for any public utility, in violation, or claimed to be in violation of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the Commission. Provided, That no complaint shall be entertained by the Commission, except upon its own motion, as to the reasonableness of any rate or charges of any gas, electrical, water or telephone corporation, unless the same be signed by the mayor or the president or chairman of the board of trustees or a majority of the council, commission or other legislative body of the city or county or city or town, if any, within which the alleged violation occurred, or not less than 25 consumers or purchasers or prospective consumers or purchasers of such gas, electricity, water or telephone service." [Sess. Laws 1913, p. 282.] Under this section, it would seem that defendant's position is well taken. The complaint was not made by this Commission on its own motion, nor was it signed by the mayor of Pocatello, or by a majority of the city council, or by twenty-five consumers or purchasers of either of the companies. The complaint is signed solely by a competing company, which, in so far as the evidence shows, is not a patron of the power company. As heretofore stated, we believe that point is well taken, but we shall not discuss the matter further, preferring to decide the case upon its merits rather than on a jurisdictional question. From a careful consideration of all the evidence and facts submitted, this Commission finds that the plaintiff has failed to sustain the allegations of its complaint, and that the same should be dismissed. It is therefore ordered that the complaint be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. ILLINOIS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. IN RE WILLIAM B. ROSS, Doing Business as the Kinmundy Mutual Telephone Exchange. A monthly salary of $80 was held to be a sufficient reimbursement for the manager of a telephone plant, where it appeared from the testimony that he did not devote his entire time to the business of the utility. Depreciation - Telephone plant - Allowance. Five per cent of the gross revenue of a telephone company was ordered set aside for depreciation. Return - Telephone — Amount of profit from switching service. A somewhat greater profit from switching service is allowable to a telephone company where about 70 per cent of the total development is rural, than where the utility is serving merely a small number of rural service subscribers. Rates · Telephone ·Switching rural service subscribers. A rate of $3 per year for switching rural service subscribers is not unreasonable where the cost of such service is approximately $2.30 per subscriber. Service - Telephone — Switching service for city subscribers. A telephone company may properly promulgate and enforce a rule restricting switching service to rural subscribers, as all city or village subscribers should pay the rate that applies to city or village subscribers for the class of service furnished. Rates - Telephone - Party-line business telephones in country. Special rates for party-line business telephones in the country were disapproved in the absence of evidence that any considerable number of business subscribers in the country must be served, as otherwise such proposed rates would probably result in discrimination as between subscribers on the same line. The Illinois Commission refused to approve a rate for telephone service, whereby switching a four-party line in the country was fixed at 35 cents, while switching a farmers' line with minimum of six on the line was fixed at 25 cents, as the rate of 25 cents was considered reasonable for all service of this character. The Illinois Commission reduced from $24 a year to $21 the rate charged by a telephone company to individual line business telephones, where the rate of $24 a year would represent a return of 8.8 per cent on the investment. [June 17, 1915.] PETITION of William B. Ross, doing business as the Kinmundy Mutual Telephone Exchange, for authority to change rates in order to eliminate discrimination and to increase the revenue; authority granted to adopt new schedule. By the Commission: Application in the above-entitled matter sets forth that the petitioner is a public utility engaged in the management and operation of a telephone system in and around the village of Kinmundy, Marion county, Illinois, and that the rates or charges of the petitioner are discriminatory and unprofitable, in some instances being less than the cost of furnishing the service. Application is made for authority to discontinue such rates as are discriminatory and to increase certain other rates, in order to produce sufficient revenue to cover the cost of operation and maintenance, including depreciation, and pay a fair return on the capital invested. The rates of the petitioner now in force and effect, as set forth in the application, are as follows: Rural telephones on lines with farmers who own their own telephones One party line to Alma, Illinois Business and residence telephones on same line ... Rural individual line telephones located just outside the .... 1.00 66 Petitioner proposes to discontinue the schedule of rates now in force and effect and establish, in lieu thereof, the following sched Switching four-party line in country .25 66 Private ground line outside city, extra for each one-half mile or fraction thereof Hearing was held at Springfield, Illinois, February 3, 1915. The petitioner was represented by Robert Fitzgerald, attorney. No one appeared objecting. From the testimony presented at the hearing, it appeared that William B. Ross, the present owner, purchased the Kinmundy Telephone Exchange in October, 1910, and that the plant and equipment have been extended and improved since coming into his possession, with a resultant improvement in the service. It further appeared that the rural lines are various in and character; that the discriminatory rates or charges are the kind |