Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-04-11


ELECTRIC WIRES IN THE DISTRICT.
An Opinion Of the Attorney ~ to the Com
niissioners Powers.
How FAR THEY CAN GRANT PERMITS IN THIS
CITY AND GEoRGETowN-AN ANSWER TO A
CONGRESSIONAL INoUIRY-A PROTEST A. TO
TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND WIRES.
The Commissioners struggled today with
| their answer to the resolution offered by Mr..
Heard last January calling upon them to re-
port whether since the passage of the act OF
Congress, approved July IS, 1888, any per-
mits have been issued by the Commissioners
for the erection and maintenance of any tele-
phone. electric or other wires on or over any
streets or avenues in that part Of the District
known as Georgetown, and if SO by what au-
thority OF law,
The Commissioners sent the resolution to the
attorney for the District for his opinion, and
he reports that the only action taken by his
once in the matter was on April, z, 1891,
when the assistant attorney reported on the
application of the Potomac Electric Company
thereon from the Chain bridge to Georgetown.
In his opinion upon this application the as
sistant attorney said he saw no objection
to granting the permit provided that no
poles be erected on private property with
out the consent Of the owner, and that no
erty belonging to the United States. The law
against overhead wires, he claims, did not ap-
ply to Georgetown or the county.
Mr.. Hazslton also says that the resolution
under consideration seems to carry the idea
that the act OF July IS, 1888, prohibits the
Georgetown. The provisions of that act,
however, he says. does not name the city OF
Georgetown in conjunction with the city OF
Washington, but by the proviso at the end OF
the paragraph on this subject, the Commits
sioners under certain circumstances are en-
powered to authorize the wires of exist
ing telegraph, telephone or electric light COM
panies to be laid underground, and this power
Is made under q proviso coextensive with the
District itself. He says further that upon a
full and careful examination of the sub
ject under consideration he cannot indorse the
the position taken by his assistant that the
consent OF lot owners abutting public streets
IN Georgetown 10 competent to confer
authority upon the Commissioners OF the Dis
trict to grant permit in case Of
this kind, as this authority rests alone
IN Congress, and only in the municipality
when delegated by law. He says that he does
not think that the power il concurrent with the
District authority in Congress. but that the
whole question of the erection and the
putting underground the management be-
lungs 10 congress ltBeu In the interest or
public safety and that the police power of Con-
gress can in no instance be dependent over
this question upon the consent or non-consent
Of lot owners
Continuing he says: 1.-THE Commissioners
would hardly assume that the consent
OF the lot owners in Georgetown would
have been sufficient to authorize them
to grant a permit to the Georgetown and
Tenleytown Railway Company to erect over
head wires for the purpose of propelling
Its cars ii Congress in the charter OF that COM
pany had not conferred such authority. and
yot the cases rest on the same principle. Nor
Is 1t wise that one company should be ordered
to go under ground in the city Of Georgetown
while another is simultaneously permitted
to erect poles and string wires thereon for the
same business purposes. Congress is now
taking jurisdiction OF the whole question. It
has ordered the lexington to cease the use
of overhead wires in its operations within
the city of Washington by July, 1893 and
prohibits the use of wires on its new extension
to 18th street northwest. / think now that it
is wise that Congress take the responsibility
which rests upon it in regard to and over this
whole question. And 1 think that Congress
should be urged by the Commissioners and by
the people of the District to now define BY law
the authority Of the District government over
this question, or at once. by proper legislation,
define what part or parts Of the Dis
trict Of Columbia shall adopt the underground
system and what part Of the District, if
any may use overhead wires. In this case 1
recommend that the permit granted to the
Potomac company be revoked and that the
parties be left to their appeal to Congress for
the authority to erect their overhead wires
and maintain them within the territory
covered by this permit In any event sug-
Rest respectfully that this permit ought not to
stand unless ratified by Congress at its present
session.
MR. BRYAN's CONTENTION.
Mr.. Bryan. president Of the Chesapeake and
Potomac Telephone Company, appeared
before the Commissioners this after
noon He contended that the two
portions OF the law which related
distinctly to different kinds Of electric lines,
should not be considered together in forming
an opinion. The first, relating to overhead
wires. was intended. he said, to limit
or minimize the nuisance Of overhead wires,
while tue second, which related to underground
ground work already completed and to permit
such extension Of it as was practicable from
time to time. For example, he said,
a large amount of underground work had been
done by the telephone company under permits
from the Commissioners, which the Su-
preme Court Of the District. in an opin-
ion by Judge James. decided was
not in accordance with existing law,
and thereupOn the Commissioners decidedfthat
nothing could be done to repair restore any
part OF this underground work until authority
by Congress had first been obtained. This gave
rise TO the provisos in the laws OF March 2 1889,
and July Is, 1883, which authorized the Com
missioners to permit the construction
of underground work. This clearly had
no connection with the prohibition referring
to the stringing OF overhead wires after Sep
TENDER 10, 1888, and lie submitted that the teie-
phone company be permitted to complete its
underground work as planned and to erect polls
and string wires as heretofore in the District
of Columbia except along the streets and ave-
nues Of the city OF Washington.
A Hair-Puliing Match.