The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-08-18
ELECTRIC WIRES.
90. .1...-. -------- =; -
They Must Not Be Placed
on fiousetops.
Judge f1ebbard Renders a Decision
: Unfolding the Supervisors
Ordinance.

A decision was rendered by Judge Hebbard
yesterday which involves The right OF the cleo.
trio light companies, aud; especially the Pacific
Power Company, TO place wires carrying cleo
trlclty for light or power purposes on house
tops. Under the decision Of the court such
wires cannot be placed. aud those which are
already in position must come down.
ON March 3, 1892, the Supervisors passed an
ordinance declaring 1t unlawful for any per-
sons TO place such wires on houseiops, under
penalty Of being arrested for misdemeanor, and
punished by a ine not exec edtng $780, The
ordinance also made it the duty Of the Chief
Engineer of the Fire Department to remove all
wires maintained In violation of the law:
Grief Scannell, VINO was at that time at the
head OF tn Fire Department; gave notice thai
in ten day he would require th removal OF all
wires, and Immediately thereafter The PacIn
Power Company began Injunction proceeding:
against him. When Chief Scannelf died the
present Chief Dennis Sullivan, was substituted
as def ndant. -
pialHtlu maintained tnaL the enforcement OF
the ordinance VIII. be 10 c0ntrayeution of the
fourteenth amendm ent 10 the constitution OF
tile United. States and OF article Y r. section l /
OF the State constitution, in that its enferce-
ment VIII result in an unreasonable and up-
nece Ssa!y restraint Of the rights OF eitzeps TO
pursue lawful and useful calling. aud de-
stEqction ofyaluable property without compen-
satlon. and also on the general grounds that it
b VIII impede The progress OF science.
Judge Hebbard, in his ,Opinlop holds at the
evidence went to show that. the wires as main
talned by the plaintiff are plainly within the
Inhibition of the ordinance. Everything
showed t1at these housetep> wires are Danger
obs to llIe, 10 limb anu to- property, and are
serious obstacles to the freInen in the dis
ehaFge or their duties both by day aud by
night. Even when precautions are taken. as
Claimed by the. power company, IL is by no
means proven that danger may.nOt result from
the wires when they are charged. The ihsula-
ton may become defective, the "ampere break"
may get out OF order, and rubber gloves and
wooden handled axes mag not always be at
hand for immediate use by the .firemen.
The end soughtto De obtained by the erdl.
nance" says Judge Hebbard namely the
public safety. is certainly one within tile limits
OF police regulation. The means employed by
the ordinance to attain the ends sought therein
mayor may not be the best means or choice
obi ainabf, but II certainly has reasonable
tendency thereto.
The court can readily. see upon perusal of
the enactment, and especially after hearing the
evidence in the. case, that there Is fair lust
and reasonable connection. between the 0rdr-
nance aud The mathematics ofthe public safety
and thisis held enough 10 sustain the validity
OF tile legislative act -. 49, =.
"Bnt the exact question here has been passed
upon by other courts. In New York in: 1884
electric wires were lsgisated under ground
and The local governments were authorized to
enforce the act and the court in the; .PeonIe
VS.. Squires. I07 New York, 594 held the act a
valid exercise OF police power.
Our own Circuit Court sustained ordinance
2iG3 Of our Board OF Supervisors, an ordinance
which was repealed at the time the ordinance
ln:questtOp In this case was passed, and similar
10 1t but more sweeping In lis terms.'':
Judge Hehpard quoted from Justice Fields
decision in the CIRCUIT Court case. showing how
1t was competent. under the. police powers of
the city. to suppress such dangerous erection
in>the interests. of the common safety of the
community.
. In conclusion Judge Hebbard saws that
while regretSpg the necessity In. the case
which affects the business enterprise Involved.
he is OF the npinion that .':ordinapce :23Oi
of. the Board Of Supervisors of the city and
1890, is valid ordinance. 1t follows, there
FORE thai the Injunction. peedente lite hereto
fore Issued in tlrfs action must. be dissolved.
fehdant for MS costs, and ii is so ordered.T