Evening star., 1896-08-05
SEEKING A SOLUTION
The Perplezing Question Of Street
Lighting Still Unsettled.
new PHASES OF TIE PROBLEM
Arguments of the Potomac Light
and Power Company.
LENGTHY HEARING

The special hearing granted by the Com
missionefs to the Potomac Light and Power
Company to combat the opinion of the at
torney for the District with reference to
the street lighting contract took place this
morning at II o'clock in the board room at
the District building.
1t will be recalled that Attorney Thomas
decided that although the Potomac Com
pany was the lowest bidder for the work
of lighting the city, the Commissioners
had no authority to consider the same in
view of the wording Of the current appro-
priation bill. coupled with the fact that the
Potomac company had no plant IN the city
east Of Rock creek.
All the Commissioners were present at the
hearing The Potomac Company was rep
resented by it's president, Capt. o. T. Cros
by, and Attorney ]. ]. Darlington. The
hearing was opened by Mr.. Darlington,
WHO. after briefly rehearsng the legisla-
tion on the subject, said his remarks would
apply equally to the proposition of Col.
Wilson relative to lighting the parks Of the
city.
A statement concerning this proposition
appeared In The Star of yesterday.
together with forecast Of Attorney
Thomas opinion upon the subject. The
proposition involved the issuance Of a
ing the parks of the city. The Poto-
mac Company was the lowest bidder.
Attorney Thomas held the Commissioners
had no authority to permit the Potomac
Company to make the connections neces-
sary to conform to the requirements Of
the same.
Mr.. Darlington's Claims.
Mr.. Darlington maintained that, the
opinion of the attorney for the District
was antagonistic to the best interests Of
the District. The Commissioners were the
ones to settle the question. The RESPONSE
bil1ty was with them and they should not
accept the opinion of their legal adviser
as the law in the case and shift the re-
sponslbility: % They were the sole judges.
and they, and they alone, had been selected
to decide the questions affecting the in
terests of the District.
He called attention to the language in
the different appropriation bills relating to
lighting, and pointed out the different Ian
guage used In the current appropriation
bill. The bills heretofore mentioned in con-
nection with this matter Of lighting Ito
maintain existing service" This was not
present in the current bill. So that 1t was
to be presumed in fact, it had been so
held, that change in the wording of a
statute from set form was evidence that
change of some kind was deemed expe-
dent. 1t was well known that the Com
missloners desired some change in the
wording of the section in order to bring
about competition In the matter Of street
lighting. This change was made at tho
time when competition for street lighting
was going on. He dissented from the
opinion of the attorney regarding the un-
ambiguousness Of the act of appropriation.
The Commissioners had evidently Thought
1t am0guous. because they advertised for
bids for street lights.
No Exclusive Rfxht. Posse..ed
He denied that the United States Electric
Company had the only right to operate
east OF Rock creek. Had this been the OBJ
5eot of Congress the language heretofore
used would have been Continued. Such a
course would have given the United States
Electric Company the exclusive right to
operate east OF Rock creek. Mr.. DARLINGTON
read the Pftney amendment, which opened
the business of street lighting to competi-
tlon This amendment was rejected by the
Senate. and the House receded
referring again to the opinion Of Attor-
ney THOMAS, he claimed that the context OF
the act had nothing to do with the ques-
text that Attorney Thomas laid SO much
stress upon. That language Of the bill re-
lating to the operation of the Potomac
company west of Rock creek did not refer
he said. to street lighting, and should not
be considered in connection Herewith
1t was grant to both electric lighting
companies to extend their service outside
the fire limits where arc lighting had never
taken this view Of the matter, since 1t
granted permits to the Potomac company
west of Rock creek without reference to
street lighting.
No Limitation to City Lighting.
1t was not a limitation in any sense to
the lighting of the streets of the city.
The act was for public purposes and
should be construed for public benefit
There was no reference to any firm or
corporation. and no authority could be
found for the construction of public
authority existed. either by implication or
conjecture, It would tie the hands
Of the authorities to the disadvantage of
the city. Congress did not intend, he
detriment Of the citizens. There was
nothing in the wording of the law desig-
mating which company was to do the
lighting: The attorney agreed in this.
text should be considered in connection.
with the matter. This he denied, as he
had stated before, the context had nothing
to do with the question. He said the his
giving the United States Electric Com
pany exclusive right to operate east of
Rock creek Mr.. Darlington rehearsed
the legislative history Of the act and main
appropriation bill did not necessarily i'm
ply that the section was not just.
Judge Bingham's Decision.
Congress had expressly refused to give
the United States Electric Company ex-
elusive right to operate east of Rock creek
And the whole question was based upon the
intent of Congress.
Referring to the decision of Judge Bing-
ham with reference to the lighting question.
he said neither company under its provisions
could make any extension whatever He
maintained that the Commissioners were
not limited by the act to lighting "the
streets now lighted If the Commission
ers decide that the United States Electric
Company Is the only company authorized
to light the city, then any and all extern
sions of the lighting service. must be sub
ject to the wishes Of that company
If there was any doubt of the question.
the interests of the city and the United
States lie in competition. There could be
no judicial deter 1mination If the Commits
sioners granted the exclusive monopoly to
the United States Company. On the other
hand, II the Commissioners would grant
the contract to the Potomac Company there
could be judicial determination In con-
clusion, he said II the United States Elec-
trio Company were awarded the contract.
the hands of the Commissioners would be
tied, and the company had 1t in its power
to put out all lights and keep the city in