Evening star., 1895-07-12
INJUNCTION DENIED
Continued from First Page }

| thorized In going to the extreme of taking
the law into his own hands and abating the
nuisance He might, of course. be liable
for damages in the suit brought by the
company,f identified, although there would
be no remedy he could see if unidentified
persons should cause the destruction of
some part of the overhead apparatus with
| in the city limits.
The Commissioners GrutiRed.
Commissioner Ross, speaking for the
board of Commissioners relative to the
decision Of the court in the trolley case,
said
''The notice of an appeal operates as
stay! and the Commissioners hands are
practically tied until this appeal is dis
| posed of. You might say the Commission
ers are gratifed with the decision
What the Chief Justice Said.
1t Is general principle CT equity" said
Chief Justice Bingham in his decision.
that a complainant coming into court
| seeking equity must come In with clean
hards The title Of a complainant to a
| right which he desires a court of equity
70 protect must be right clearly belong
| ing to him. and one which in every respect
| is legal and of right. A court of equity
VIII not lend its aid, although a party
may snow that somebody is intending to do
something which may be unlawful or that
some one threatens to do something that
is apparently Injurious to the complainant
| II the complainant has no title to the en-
loyinent OF the right, which is threatened
ps ahothef The court will not lend its aid
TO protect the party in the enjoyment of a
| right to which he has no title whatever.
much less right which is claimed in viola
Ion OF law, or thing that may be or is
prohibited by law.
II Is claimed, however, in this bill, and
II IS CLAIMED very strenuously in the argu-
ment OF counsel, that the threatened in
vasion of what is claimed by the COM
plainant as its right in the trolley system
and Its poles and wires, is an invasion of
its rights conferred by Congress. That
Cor gress, after granting them a right of
| Incorporation, and the right to construct
this line, and after they have invested their
money in the erection of these poles and
| stringing these wires, confers upon them a
vested right, and that after that Congress
had no lawful, constitutional power or
right or authority to pass law which
| would practically confiscate that property
or interfere with the complainant in the
| to them by the original act. They call to
their aid the celebrated case of Dartmouth
| College VS.. Woodward and other kindred
cases, both before that decision and since
A Cnse That Does Not Apply.
But that was a case where 1t was
| sought to establish the sacredness of a
| contract, and the claim was made that the
granting of a charter by the sovereignty
to the corporation, or to citizens, was in
SON-
ereignty, after having invested q party
with certain franchise which was valua-
bic, and which held out inducements to the
corporation in consideration of the fran
chfse to invest a large sum of money, or
any sum of money, that such a contract
was sacred, and could not be impaired by
subsequent legislative act. That case is in
voked here. 1t is upon that principle that the
counsel argue that the charter which has
been granted to the lexington Company
by Congress, without any restriction as to
the use of electrical power or the manner
of the use of electrical power, and clearly
| used. Having done that Congress could
not afterward pass an act which would
impair and interfere with or take away
from the complainant the right to use cleo
trical power, granted in the original act
But | think 1t has been repeatedly estab-
lished-at least 1t was very Well established
in the Dartmouth College case-that subse-
quent legislation could not affect charter
rights where the original act made no pro-
vision or reservation of right to the legis-
lative power to alter, amend or repeal. In
this case, In the original act, Congress had
reserved the right to alter, amend or re-
peal the original act. That has been re-
peatedly held by all the courts to leave
sufficient power and authority in Congress
TO pass any act in relation to the matter
that they may think is wise and proper.
They may repeal a charter in toto and pro
vide for winding up the affairs of the cor
poration, If they think this ought to be
done; and that has been repeatedly done
by legislative authority. Corporate char
ters have frequently been repealed and pro-
vision made for winding up the affairs of
corporations. There is then, clearly, 1
think, authority on the part of Congress
to pass this act. I have no question about
1t.
No Unlawful Act Intended.
There was one feature Of this case Gid
not call attention to, and did not think it
necessary to do so. in order to decide the
case. AS an additional reason for an In
Junction. 1t is claimed by the complainants,
they rely upon that ground alone that the
Commissioners have announced their in
tentfon to forcibly tear down these poles
and wires. That they intend so to do is de-
MED by the Commissioners. They do say
that they intend. however, to proceed by
strictly lawful methods to prevent the
wires and poles from remaining where thew
are. because of the authority and direction
of Congress given in the act Of 1893, and
which provides that the trolley system
shall not be used after the 1st Of July; and
they Insist that that act shall be respected
It might be question whether the plead
1ngs, as they are before the court admit
that the defendants intend If not restrained
to do that. In that respect we must re-
member that the District of Columbia acts
through it's board Of Commissioners in re-
spect of these matters. They are officials
Of high character, invested with important
and responsible trusts; perhaps there are
no municipal officers In the country who
are invested with as important duties
powers and trusts as are the Commission
ers of this District. Such authority is usu-
ally. divided among mayors. boards and
councils in other cities; but here it is re-
posed entirely in the board of Commission
ers. They are appointed by the President,
confirmed by the Senate Of the United
States and. of course, are naturally Sc
lected by reason of their supposed qualifi-
pose that they intend to do an unlawful
thing, or to do lawful thing in an unlaw-
full way, unless 1t Is made to appear In
some way, unless there is some evidence of
such intention, or, If they were to do an
act that might be done lawfully, that they
intended to do that act in an unlawful way
The presumption is that they would follow
the lawful mode If 1t can be done in a law
full manner, and not in an unlawful man.
ner
Liability of the Commissioners.
while it has been urged by the counsel
for the complainant that the defendant has
no lawful right to prevent the complainant
from using its trolley system I do not
know for what length Of time, but I sun.
pose upon the principle that they are en-.
titled to 1t, because the Congress of fhe
United States has not the power to deprive
them of this right. after having granted II