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

THE MAXIM POLES.
sOaE FUkrhEK LEGAL OPINIONS.
The O,s'ssns object To tho Trsepsssers and
Sosse - Them Tn, eaten asefist NEE
-rhe Wooden fo,es muss Go.
The unsightiy poles of the Maxim cleo.
TIC ligbt company, aud the impunity with
which the company's agents take posses
sion OF private property fN their erection,
continue to be subjects Of general discus.
sion among the people. The almost
universal sentiment is that the companv
has NO right to put them on private prop.
erty without the owners consent, and the
owners whose properties have bsen taken
possession Of, SO far as we have been able
to investigate, have almost unanimously
objected to the trespass The Opinions of
several members of the bar have been
published in this paper. Here follow tho
views of several others
VIM. Leamau, esq, holds that, while
the primary use of streets is 10 afford the
public convenient and unobstrucsed right
Of way, there are secondary uses to which
they may be put by the city. among which
are the laying of gas aud water pipes
below the surface, and the erection
above the surface Of lamp posts,
awnings, telegraph poles, &C., and the
planting OF shade trees, all of which
may be done without materially Obstruct-
ing the streets. He agrees with Solicitor
johnson that the city, in making contract
with the Maxim company to light the
streets with electric lamps, gave the COM
pany the right to use all necessary appli-
ances to accomplish that result, provided
it can be done without material obstruction
of the streets.
G. Clem. Kennedy, esq, believes that
the city has exclusive control over the
streets aud can delegate to individuals or
corporations its right to lay water or gas
pipes, dig sewers, or erect lamp posts or
poles for telegraph or other purposes !; and
that the city may, if it choose, remove
door steps, cellar doors, awning posts and
awnings, shade trees, or anything else that
Obstruct the streets. He holds that the
city, if it be deemed necessary, may au-
thorize tho building of sewer on South
Prince street, between Farnum s. Co. 3
No. and No. 2 cotton mills, though by 50
doing the underground railway connecting
them would bo destroyed.
D. G. Baker and J. B. Amwake, esqs.,
incline to the opinion that the electric poles
are being put up with due warrant Of Law.
]. w. F. Swift, b. F. Montgomery, A.
d. Fritchey, w. D. Weaver and A. F.
Hostetter, esqs., deny that the Maxim
company has auy rights in the premises, or
that the city has conferred upon the com
paDy any authority to put up the uDsight.
ly chestnut saplings.
In reporting an interview had with H.
G. Brubaker ON Tuesday, va inaiver-
tently misrepresented that gentl' mans .
views in deny ing to the city the power to
lay water and gas mains and dig sewers,
by the omission Of tho words - except by
legislative enactment He says g 1t il
we'll settled principle of law that a mu-
nicipal corporation, as we'll as all other
incorporate bodies, derive their powers
either directly from their charters or from
special statutes which are in effect sup
plements to the charters. In England ex-
press Legislative sanction is necessary to
warrant the laying down of gas pipes. water
pipes, &C., in the public highway and 30
in this country the right is u franchise
which can be parted only by the Lsgisls.
ture or some local or municipal author
ity empowered by statute to confer
it." [Dillon on municipal corporations,
sec. SAG and 551.] For example, tho city
Of Lancaster by its charter of 1918, had
no right to ditch and lay any water pipes
in the public streets, for the reason that
no such authority was expressly given
therein. The act Of March u, 1886, was
passed giving it power to "enter private
| roads or highways, as may be necessary,
and to occupy, dig, ditch and. lay pipes
through the same, and to raise, alter and
repair"
]. Hay Brown says that under the Eng
lish law the streets are the king high
way" over which all his subjects have a
common right of way. Under American
law the highways belong to the people,
and all have equal rights to their
unobstructed use. For municipal
purposes the city authorities elect
ed by the people have undOubted
control over the streets from wall to wall,
subject always to the greater right of
way. They can order the erection Of lamp
posts, fire plugs, poles, &c, and permit
the erection Of awning posts pOrticOes,
door steps, Sc , provided they do not
become nuisances, or materially Obstruct
the common right of way.
N. BrOsius, ESQ.,, says that the city has
entire control of the streets, subject to the
TISuL VI way, 8uU Cdu u0lcR6I0 ltO pOw0E u
a corporation or individual to erect poles
or do any other work deemed necessary
for the public good.
George Brubaker, esq, doubts the right
of the Maxim company to place their poles
on the pavements without the consent Of
the property owners, but be wants to see
the streets we'll lighted and il he had ten
properties he would give the company
permission to put up poles on all of them
SO that he might have the benefit of the
light.
The following named citizens strsnu-
ously objected to the poles being placed
in front of their premises, but their com.
plants were unheeded: John G. and
Charles Hager, West King street Finn
s. BrenemaD, Cbas. Buchmiller, Mrs.
Cruel, Mrs. Reese, Vim. NJ. Shrum. N.
Geisenberger. North Queen street q. E.
Slaymaker, North Duke street.
In taking up tho flag pavemerts to make
way for the poles, the workmen have in
many instances broken the flags by their
careless handling of them. A number of
these have been left lying upon the pave
ments as eyesOres to the owners and STUN
bling blocks to passers-by. Several acci-
dents have happened in consequence, but
none. of them serious, SO far a. We have
learned.
Manv Of the DOles ara r,Jaced directlv In