Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-01-11
MAJ.POWELL'S REPLY
His Rejoinder to the Statements of
MI. Thomas.
STATUS OF TIE ELECTRIC LIGHT CO.
Circumstances Of the Alleged Re-
quest for Permit.
T H E NEW COMP ANY

Maj Powell took occasion today to reply
| to President Thomas of the United States
Electric Lighting Company regarding the
! contention over pole line in the county
In conversation with a reporter of The
| Star he said:
Yes. I have read the statement of Mr.
Thomas in The Star, and falel to find in
| 1t any substantiation or confirmation of
| the statements made by him quoted by
Mr.. Ballinger of the Columbia Heights
Citizens Association and as published in
| The Star. 1t was this statement made by
Mr.. Ballinger which prompted the intima-
| ton and insinuation by himself and other
members of his association as TO improper
| action by the Commissioners.
Never Requested a Permit.
Now. the United States Electric Light
| ing Company has not repeatedly requested
a permit to build electric conduits into or
| for the purpose of lighting Columbia
Heights. l had characterized that state
| nient as false, and said that the United
| States Electric Company had never made
application fer permit to build conduit
over that subdivision or over any subdi-
| visions, and detailed how, on the 1ith OF
November last, it had made application for
a certain pole line over the territory west
of Columbia Heights, published in The
Star of the 9Th instant.
Mr. Thomas denial of my statements Is
based upon the flimsy foundation that he
asked verbally for a permit to lay conduit
On the west side of 14th street from Column
hia Heights Mr.. Thomas has known, as
every citizen who has similar business with
| the District knows, that all permits for per-
manent constructor in the streets are re-
| quired to be in writing, and that they are
carefully examined in every detail by the
authorities before any action is taken. 1
don't recollect that Mr.. Thomas made even
! verbal application. bat do recollect that
| I intimated that no permit for a pole line
would be given on 14th street and certain
other streets, and also that his written ap-
plication for pole line would not be con-
sdered while the case of his restraining
order was in progress. in which / understood
he claimed the Commissioners were not au-
| thorized to issue permits for the occupation
| of the public streets, or at least they were
| rot allowed to issue permits to any other
electric company than his own.
| Would Make No Bids.
1.-The United States Electric Light Com
pany has had ample opportunity and num-
Der of Invitations to occupy the territory
| of the settled suburbs adjacent to Washing
ton. The Commissioners advertised for pro-
posals in June, 1893, for street lighting in
the whole District by gas, electricity or gas
| oline, one of the specifications being that
no overhead wires would be allowed The
| company failed TO make any proposal what
| ever In February. 1894 the company ap-
piled for permit for a certain pole line in
| Connecticut Avenue Heights and Washing
] ton Heights. which was granted. upon a
modfled route, and the permit suspended,
| as it appeared that the part of the permit
| for the erection of poles and overhead wires
| on Florida avenue next west of Connecticut
| ayenue was contrary to the law prohibiting
the erection of any additional overhead
| wires in the city, and the company was
| offered a permit for a conduit along Florida
| avenue, with pole line along the remainder
CT the line. as requested in the permit
! 1.-THE company refused this offer and said
that it would not build any conduts, and
| cid not want to go into the county. In
| May, 1875. proposals for street lighting
we're asked by gas, incandescent electric
! lights and naphtha lamps in the suburbs,
| divided into districts of convenient location,
one of which districts was called Columbia
| Heights and University Park. The specfi-
| outside of the city of Washington. The
| United States Electric Lighting Company
| declined to make any proposal of any char
| acter, and had not at any time until very
| recently showed any disposition to supply
| the service outside Of the city of Washing
| ton.
The New Company.
After the date of opening the set of pro-
| posaIs. the Potomac Electric Light and
Power Company applied to the Commission
| ers for Information as to how it could or
| should proceed to establish electric service
| in the District, and stated that it would
| build conduits in Washington and furnish
| arc lights and electric lights for private
| use at prices being a very considerable re-
duction below those charged by the United
States Electric Lighting Company.
The Po-omac Company vas discoura gel
| from any proposition of operation in Wash
iugton, but informed that the field in the
| county was open. 1t subsequently made a
| written offer to light the Tenleytown road
outside of Washington aud Tenleytown,
yY-h nh MO nd nntafp, Npt 40
| for incandescent lights of 25-candle power
burning all right, at prices below those we
| are paying for inferior street lights The
| company shortly afterwlrd and several
| weeks before November IA Che date of Mr.
| Thomas application for pole line), ap-
| piled for a permit for pole lines across
Rock creek into the county. The routes
| were not acceptable to the Commissioners
Other routes were named in subsequent ap-
plfcationS by the new company by which
| their line did not extend along 18th street,
| neither on a part of Florida avenue near
| LIE Droit Park, nor on the center of the
streets and roads, wilere did not pro-
pose .thers should be arythirg different
| than condlits. Revocabie permits were is
| sued to the other company for pole lines of
acceptable routes, after the matter, as
have said before, had been under consider
alton several weeks before the first part
| of November The permit was actually is
sued on. or shortly afta", November IL.
| Repres ent atives of newspapers applied to
me for information about this permit, and
| directed the permit clerk to show them
all the papers in the case, ard upon appli-
| cation the United States Electric Light
Company came in with an application Cor
| it's permit on Novembe" IA.
As Foreign Corporation.
"Mr. Thomas objects to my characteriza-
! ton of his company as foreign corpora
| ton. He fails to notice the difference be
| tween corporations doing a private bust
ness like the insurance title companies and
| his company which performs a semi-public
| or municipal service, occupies the public
streets and avenues under no regulations or
conditions whatever as to the charges it
| may make for private lighting. Ny idea
that this company had Only rights of suf-
| ferance here was confirmed by the positive
assertion voluntarily made by legal counsel
| at a late and long hearing before the Com
| missioners in behalf Of the United States
| Electric Company.
THE gentleman asserted then that the
company had no legal authority whatever
| for the erection of poles or overhead wires
| in the District and that the ones now
maintained We're also without warrant Of
| law. One result OF this company perform
| ing a municipal service in the District of
Columbia on charter granted in a state is