Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-11-25
Hearing To-day Regarding Laying
Electric Gonduits.
POTOMAC LlGG' and POWER COMPANY
The Question Argued by Both
.5Sides.
OTHER LOCAL NEW IS


today. Several days ago. it will be recall
ed, the Potomac Light and Power Company
made appica ton for permit to make GER
| tain underground house connections from it's
overhead plant. An opinion of the attorney
for the District was opposed to the grant,
ing of the permit but subsequently recon-
| mended in another opinion the granting of
the permit. This application was looked
upon by the United States Electric Light
ing Company as unwarranted by law, and a
hearing was arranged with the Commits
sioners to consider the protest
This morning President A. A. Thomas. &C
companled by Messrs. Henry Wise Garnet
and James w. Redington, appeared in the
interest of the United States Electric Com
pany. Mr. o. T. Crosby, president of the
Potomac Light and Power Company was
present in the interest of his company.
No Authority.
Mr.. Henry Wise Garrett was the first to
open the discussion. He maintained that
no authority existed to use the streets for
laying conduits except by special act of Con-
gress. The Commissioners power, in the
absence of express legislation. was limited
to carrying out the laws of Congress and
seeing to 1t that the streets should be used
for ordinary purposes. He gave history of
the several acts of Congress bearing upon
the subject. and said the Commissioners
to grant the applicants the permit sought.
Passing a Franchise.
Mr.. ]. w. Redington followed. He also
traced the legislative history Of electric
| light and other wires with respect to the
city Of Washington. He maintained that
the power granted by Congress expired
with the Ffty-first Congress. Referring
then to the applicant, he said that from all
information obtanable. from all records in
the District office the applicant had no
standing in law. 1t was supposed to be the
successor of the old Potomac Company, but
there was no record that it succeeded to its
| franchise. Tais being the fact, the wires
strung overhead in Georgetown owned now
by the Potomac Company were there il
egally. The Potomac Light and Power
Company was Incorporated November g.
1894. and not being in existence at the
time the law was passed. which allowed
existing wires to be placed underground
had no right now. to come in and claim a
permit Under that act
He asserted, tiIs. the franchise of the old
Potomac Electric Company could not and
did not pass to a rev company. and If
anything In the shape of plant really eX-
| listed II was through purchase and not with
the right of franchise.
Referring to,the old Potomac company
he said its original capital stock was only
$4,000. and that. as subsequently develop
ed. was owned by J. H. Wilder of St. Paul,
MINI. ut -
Argues.
| Mr.. o. T. Crosby followed. He said the
United States Electric Company was a for
eign corporation not chartered by Con-
gress and as star as franchises were
| concerned. thoth,t;eompanies were In the
same boat. IN ia,
| According, to the. Interpretation of the
law as given by the attorney for the
United States Electrit Company. CongIe SIS
| left loopiIole in it's law relating to over
| head wires through which only it could
pass. He roundly scored the United States
| Electric Company for the monopoly it was
| ment to be supposed that Congress had
enacted law fostering monopolies. The
wires of the company he was interested in
| were In existence VIXEN the law governing
| underground commits was passed, and it
would be unfair to keep from it the privi-
| leges that it was justly entitled to.
Then the citizens were to be thought Of
| In this connection. Underground conduits
! for house connection were in their interest.
| and the Commissioners should consider that
| feature. He was somewhat familiar with
| the law, but more familiar with electric
| matters. and thought layman he could
| better interpret the wishes of Congress. 1t
was not that Congress opposed house con-
| nections. but was opposed to granting any
| streets without careful inquiry into their
means and methods. House connections.
| however. wye authorized, and he thought
while the Commissioners were without au-
1
| lay additional conduits. they certainly had
| the right to authorize and permit under
| ground house connections. A recess was
| then taken until o'clock to allow the Com
| missionerS to go to lunch.
Policemen Fined.
| Privates F. l.. Rice and J. H Kinnamon
| of the police force. recently tried for neglect
| OF duty, have been fined $40.
Orders for Work.
|
day was one for the plank walk to be laid in
| the west side of oath street from Emporia
to Frankfort street, and in the south side
of Franfort street from 22d to oath street,
under the provisions Of the permit system.
| A cement sidewalk and new curb will
shortly be laid in W street. between 18th
| and 14th streets northwest. under the pro-
| visions of the permit system.
The sewer in the north side of p street
| between 18th and Sth streets has been or
dered to be replaced. the sewer to be ex-
| tended to the northeast corner of 9TH and
| P streets. The sewer in the east side of
| 7th street between I street and Florida
avenue will also be replaced.
| The Commissioners nave allotted the sum
| of S40,0OO for the water fund.- to be used in
continuire the work for extending the high
| service system.
| Water Main assessments Conceded.
! Water main assessments were Cancelled
by the Commissioners on account of the de-
cision in the Burgdorf case against the fol-
! lowing lots: 80
Lots 4. ; and {. block Is. Brookland.
| Lot 8, block 81. Howard University sub
| division.
Lots 4 and ), plat 8. Middleton subdivi-
| sion. c>ut
Lot 6. plat S,1NFddleton subdivision.
| Lot 8, block. 49,, Brookland.
Also the remaining installment against
| lot s, in Middleton subdivision; lot 12, square
| 1913; lots Ii. N and q, Gass' subdivision
and all the installments against lots 3, 2:
and ~, in thetsane subdivision.
....- Bids Opened. ..-.s.
Bids were Opened at the Commissioners
office today FOR laying brick sewers and
constructing Hanholes on private property
between Brightwood avenue and Pincy
Branch road TIE bidders were: James
McCandlish. $.3I, per lirear foot for the
sewer and s2g each for manholes; Barlus
| Gaskins. $50 pen linear foot for sewer and
s15 each for manholes; John E. Lyons, $. IS
per linear foot for sewer and So each for
manhoIes; e. G. Gummell. S3.9S per linear
foot for sewer and $50 each for manholes
H. C. Nichols. 81: 40 per linear foot for
| sewers and SIS each for manholes