Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-04-26
TAXING TIE POLES.
The Scheme 10 Compel the Telegraph
and Telephone Companies
TO PAY FOR USE OF THE STREETS


The City Council is preparing a.
announced IN last evenings NEWS to
place an annual tax on the street poles
used by the Western Union Telegraph
anu Rocky Mountain Boil Telo-
phone companies. Tho proposition
as II sianda now IL that the
chief local representative Of each
Of the companies named shall,
during the month Of July, file with tho
collector a statement In writing, un.
der oath, specifying tho number Of
telegraph or telephone poles In use
by His company on the LIST day Of July
Of said year. and said company shall,
Mt the same time, pay to the collector
it the use Of the city the sum OF IS
ior each and every polo 20 shown for
ihv year then commencing on the lat
DAY OF July.
The Salt Lake Council by pursuinR
thls course h following In tho
wake Of 81. Louls, which passed such
au ordinance In 1854, which provided
that aftor that time "Sll telegraph and
telephone companies which are not by
ordinance taxed ON their gross income
iof city purposes shall pay 10 tho city Of
SO. Louis Tor the privilege OF using
the streets, alleys and putllo places
thereof the sum Of IS per annum for
each and every Telegraph aud telt-
phone pole elected or used by them In
the streets alleys and public places Of
said city"
The Western Union Telegraph
company contested the legality Of this
ordinance anu the district court found
against them whereupon au appeal
was taken 10 the supreme court Of the
United Sta'ei which on March 9th of
THIS year used these words. "a city
has the right to charge q telegraph
company for the use OF It, streets and
public places for telegraph poles
erected therein." A lso. mo one
would suppose that n franchise from
the Federal government 10 corpora
ton, state or national, 70 construct
Interstate roads or lines OF travel,
transportation or communication
would authorizes IL 10 enter upon tho
private property OF an individual and
appropriate It without compensation.
sive might be tho times IN which the
franchise was granted, II would DO
confessedly subordinate 10 the right OF
the individual not TO be deprived OF
his property without lust c0mpensa.
ton. Aud the prIncipls lie the same
when, under the grant Of franchise
from the national government, u cor.
porntlon assumes 10 enter upon prop
crty OF n public nature belonging TO q
state. IL would not be claimed, for
instance, that under a franchise from
Congress to construct and operate an
interstate railroad the grantee thereof
could entes rpOn the state house
grounds OF tue state, aud con.
struct It's depot there, Without
paying the value OF the property
thus appropriated. Although tho
state houso grounds be property
devoted TO the public uses Of the state
and property whose ownership and
control Ia not within tho competency
OF the national government 10 disp0.
sess the state Of such control and use,
or appropriate the same 10 It's own
benuiit or the benefit Of any OF its cor
pOratlOns, without suitable cOmpen-
ealiOn b tho state. This rule extends
~ streets and highways; they ars the
public property OF the state. While
Tor purposes OF travel and common use
they are open 10 the citizens OF every
state alike, and no state can by It's
legislation deprive the citizens Of an
other state Ut such common Use, yet
when an appropriation of any part Of
this public property 10 an exclusive
uBe Ia sought, whether by citizen or
corporation OF the same or another
slate, or corporation OF tho national
government within the competency OF
the Estate, representing the sovereign
ty OF that local public, to exact for Its
benefit mpensntion for this exclusive
appropriation. IL mattera not for what
that exclusive appropriation ia taken,
whether for steam railroads or street
railroads, ielegraphs OF telephones, tho
state may II II chOOses, exact from the
party or corporation given such exclu-
slve Iecuninry compensation 10 the
general public for being deprived u
the common use Of the portion thus
appropriated.
Tho court cannot assume that the
charge 4 excessive, and so excessive
~ 10 make the ordinances unTeason-
utle aud void; tor as APP
piled In certain cases, alike
charge for so much appropriation OF
the streets may be REASONABLE . II
within few blocks OF Wal street, Now
York, the telegraph company should
IlAC8 on the public streets 1900 VI its
large poles, IL woul seem as though
no court could decl ire that 50 n pole
was excessive annual rental; while on
tho other hand, charge Tor "A Ike
number OF poles In a small vii.
lRge, whore space il RDund-
ant ana land OF little value
wouli bo mauilesily unreasonable anu
might be 70 excessive as to DO void.
Indeed Il may be observed in the line
OF thought heretofore expressed, that
this charge Is In the nature OF "A rental;
that the occupation Of the streets can
be denied by the CITY,"
The cpuncilmeu who favor the tax
ing Of the poles Of the telegraph ana
telephone companies think they viii
have little difficulty in coming oil VIE
toriuug Ia the face OF this opinion by
the United States Supreme court.