Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-06-30
DISTRICT GOVERNMENT.
Lighting the City.

The receipts Of the bids for public light
ing yesterday was the forerunner of what
promises to be long and tedious fight be-
tween the Commissioners and the corpora
tons that supply light. Two grave ques-
tions present themselves: Have the Com
missoners the right to permit the Potomac
Electric Light Company to occupy the pub
lie streets for the; purpose of public light
ing?" and VIII the authorities knuckle to
the gas company and allow 1t to continue
lighting the city upon it's own specifica-
tons, or will they stop the use Of gas and
substitute other lighting material? II they
have the right, to- authorize the Potomac
company to ght the streets with arc lights,
it is argued they ahve the right to substitute
tncandescent electric lights for gas lamps.
The Potomac company realized this ext
gency, and putt in a bid for this branch of
the service. and agreed to substitute incan-
descent electric lights for gas at the price
now paid for the latter-namely, SO per
annum. "
The District has not had a contract with
either the gas or electric light company
for over year. Both companies failed to
bid for contracts covering a period of one.
three and five years, contracts for the
same being authorized by Congress-, and
the Commissioners were forced to continue
the lighting service under whatever condi-
tons they could get.uAnd this remains the
situation today. If the attorney for the
District decides that the Potomac company
has the right to use the streets for the pur-
pose of lighting the same, 1t is possible that
the contracts for lighting pretty much all
the city will be given to that company.
But 1t Is not believed at the District
building that the Commissioners have any
right or authority to permit company to
occupy the streets even for a public pur-
pose unless said use is specifically authoriz-
ed by Congress. ThePotomac company,as its
vice president declares, has the right to use
q In In
view of Judge Bingham's decision, which
was only specific upon the one point that
no corporation had the right, by virtue of
permit from the Commissioners, to oc-
cupy the public streets for private pur-
pose. The lighting of the streets was in no
wise private affair, and it could not be
argued that the Commissioners had no au-
thor1ty to grant the permit for the same
1t seems this question was raised several
weeks ago In different manner. query
was sent to the attorney for the District
by an official of the District, asking wheth-
er the Potomac company had the right to
light the streets east of Rock creek. 1t was
then thought land The Star SO printed at
the time) that the Potomac company was
contemplating the laying of a submarine
cable, from which it hoped to light certain
parts of the District. The opinion of the
attorney for the District at that time WAS
to the effect that by reason Of the express
limitations in the appropriation bill the
Potomac company could not operate east of
AeCeh Sieeh. Al TIE tlIile tnlS decision was
rendered the question raised by the Poto-
mac company had not been presented. 1t
is understood. however, that this new ques-
ton will not alter the facts, and that when
the attorney makes his decision. it will be
against the proposition of the Potomac
company. 1t will be shown that no one has
the right to use the public streets without
special authority of Congress. That q
parallel case to the one offered by the Po-
tomac company would be in the case Of an
existing railroad. While 1t has the right.
by virtue Of its charter. to, occupy certain
streets, 1t has not the right to occupy other
streets. even though it be for the public
good.