Telegram-herald., 1888-01-10
THE OFFICIAL ORDER
REASONS Fos JAcKsoNs DECISION.
fhs Judge Holds That The Comsisa toun-
eil t4a Not GrAEs fxeiastss
frsathtse-A Formal Order
Issaxd az Once.

session Of Ibe United States coart was
be.d yesterday. With Judge Seyersns pre-
siding. The hrss order Of business Mas The
reading Of the order relative 10 the Edison
Electric Light Company, in which Judge
Jackson denied the injunction asked for by
the Grand Rapids Electric Light Company.
Tie written opinion was In bis Honors
oEn penmanship, ana comprised many
pages ol closely written matter. In sub
stAnee Judge Jackson states the history OF
the case. that the bill WAS nlec by the
Grand Rapids Electric Light and Power
Company 10 eniOin tho Ellison Company
from using the streets ia this city TO erect
poles, run wires, etc The old company
oases It's night upon an ordinance passed oy
the Common Council in April, 1850, where
BY tie Coancil granted TO tie old companY
ne right 20 use the streets exclusively Tor
the term OF fifteen years for the purpose OF
erecting poles, etc.
Upon 4 motion for an Injunction q,
prayed ia the oil an order vas made grant
ing such All Injunction TIE Edison Com
pany then entered motion that the in
junction be dissolved on the ground that
TIE Council had no power 10 grant
any exclusive privilege; that the ordi-
nance granting such privilege created
monopoly; that 10 was unreasonable, and
that the old company had forfeited the right
u an exclusive use Of the STREETS under the
ordinance, II the latter was OF any validity.
This motion was argued before Hon. Howell
T.. Jackson, United States Circuit Judge, at
Nashville, Tenn.
In the opinion the Judge then states the
provisions OF the City Charter OF 1871, which
conferred upon the Council all the powers
il possessed, at the time of the passage OF
the ordinance in 1850. The Judge then
~ r~fn hat n4l
possesses such powers only as sre conferred
upon il, and calls attention 10 the fact that
10 power was given in expressed terms to
the city OF Grand Rapids to grant TO any
person or corporation say exclusive priv
iieges in the use of the streets, and the
question, therefore, is whether such power
Was conferred by implication. This ques-
tiCn Judge Jackson states TO DC the con-
trolling one in the case. He then discusses
il upon principle and upon the authority OF
adjCdic&ted cases His conclusion is that
the Common Council did not possess any
power to grant the exclusive privilege
which it undertook TO grant 10 the Grand
Rapids Electric Light & Power Company
BY the ordinance of 1880, and that that
ordinance in so far as it granted such ex-
elusive privilege. was absolutely void. The
opinion closes with the direction that
an order be entered dissolyirg the injunc-
ttOu WIN tiFto W SC fNSOfN4~1 " >-<~ <->&@
son Company.
After the reading a formal order was
issued by Judge Seysrens and the iniunc-
ton now stands dissolved. In speaking OF
this case 10 the attorneys, relative To an
appeal should one be taken, the answer
was given that II could be done by taking
proofs in the matter before Master IN
Chancsry, and submitting them to Judge
Ssversns, Judge Jackson. or Justice Stanley
Matthews or all three together and an ap-
peal taken from their decision to the United
States Supreme Court. Everyone familiar
With the slow progress of cases in that court
will readily see that process would be very
SLOW, as they are read three years behind
on its calendar. Another preliminary in-
junction cannot be issued. There has
always been more or less comment on this
matter ss TO why hearing was necessary
before Judge Jackson after the case had
been heard and denied by Judge Severens in
the court here. IL may therefore De briefly
stated as follows The case was matter be-
fore the United States Circuit Court in
which Judge 5everens, being United States
District Judge. only sits daring The absence
Of Judge Jackson. and in making his dscis-
.ou i was based on the fact that the matter
should be heard before the Circuit Judge
proper. or Judge Jackson.