Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-08-30

THURSDAY EVENING. AUG. 30. 1888. |
The Electric Light Poles.
The New Era joins with rs in echoing
the voice of tho people against the I'M
slightly poles. It agrees with us that the
city has not invested the Maxim com
pany with any power which 1t may itself
have to put up the poles, and that the
property holders are justified in cutting
them down. The Examiner " Ruesses I"
shat tho poles viii 60 up and stay up and
seems to be quite in love with them.
We do not admire its tss' and have not
much respect for Its law.
We concede that II the city under
takes 70 put up these poles, the question
Of right which it will raise with the
property owners il one which has two
sides, and which will require the sdjudi-
cation of the courts to settle. This
question has two branches; nrst, can
the city put up any obstruction ut all on
the streets, that extends beneath their
surface, for the purpose of lighting the
streets with electricity and secondly, II
it has this power. must 1t not use 1t 80 as
to make the obstruction as small As pos
siblel Upon this latter point We have
little doubt. II the city has the power
to erect posts on the sidewalks it does
not carry the power to put up large
wooden poles where small iron ones will
do the work or where the wires may be
strung upon the trees, or laid under
ground.
But it is denied that the city has any
authority at all. unless it is expressly
conferred upon 1t by the Legislature to
dig down under the surface Of the ground
to plant posts therein, even for the nee
essary purpose of lighting the city. Tho
use of tho ground beneath tho surface
belongs to tho adjacent property holder :;
the city having st common law only the
use of the surface ~ . roadway. The
power to build sewers has besn conferr-
ed by act of ANssmbly. So the privilege
OF laying water mains has been express
" given by statute. The power to erect
gas posts was conferred by the Legisla-
ture upon tho gas companies.
II the authority Of tho city to dig up the
sidewalks is inherent in 1t, what becomes
of the right Of the property owner to e1
cavats his sidewalk Do those who
claim that tho city can plant poles on the
sidewalks, without the consent Of the
property owner, claim that the latter
cannot excavate under tho sidewalk
without the consent Of the city! We
have never heard that the right Of the
property owner to utilize the space under
tho side walk has been denied. It ID
constantly exercised /; and not only this.
but the space under the street has been
utilized by the adjacent property owner.
The Conestoga steam mills, on tho oppo'
site sides Of Prince street, belonging to
John Fsrnum i Co. are connected by
an underground passage beneath the
street. Has the city the right to forbid
this use OF the ground beneath the
street The fee of the ordinary road is
in the adjacent property owners, each
holding to the centre. It is held subject
to the public right Of way and the right
o. eminent domain In the state which
controls the property owuers' rights
above and below the surface. Where
a town has been laid out, tho streets
dedicated to public use, and made the
boundaries Of the lots, tho town prsb.
ably has right to such use Of the street
as is necessary to the public comfort
but that does not confer tho power OF
obstructing unnecessarily the primal
use of the street as thorOughfare /; and
we hold that large wooden poles to sus
tain the electric wire are such an unnec
essary obstruction, since iron poles, or
trees or underground wires make them
unnecessary. The wooden poles must 60.