Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-03-20
THAT TROUBLESOME POLE
The Case Against tho o. 8. Electric
Light Company Resumed.
Arguments Made by Counsel for the
District md for the
Company.

The case Of the District of Columbia
against the United States Electric Light
ing Company, involving the occupancy of
public space with overhead wires, brough.
about by the alleged unlawful erection of
pole recei tly al the northeast corner of
18th street and Pennsylvania avenue. was
resumed this morning before Judge Kimbali
in the Police Court.
Sir. Thomas Argument.
All testimony in the case was placed in
evidence Wednesday. SO that when the
matter CT me up today counsel proceeded
at once with arguments. Attorney s. T.
Thomas, representing the District, was the
first to address the court. In opening, he
stated that the care of the streets of the
District devolves upon the Commissioners,
and 1t Is their duty to keep them clear
and unobstructed. He then went on to
argue that the pole in question at 18th
reality the pole of the United States Elec-
trio Lighting Company, and not of the
Western Union Telegraph Company. as
had been contended. The telegraph COM
the old. decayed pole at the corner men,
tioI ed. for 1t supported only the wires of
the electric lighting company. In illustra-
ton of his point Mr.. Thomas cited an
imaginary case, involving the right of the
owner of a building to which wires are at
tacted to tear down his structure, erect
another and decline to permit the attaching
OF wires to the new building
Mr.. Thomas declared 1t to be entiraly
immaterial that there was any provision
OF revocation in the Permits issued for its
laying of wires.
No Emergency Existed.
The attorney, continuing. argued to show
that the old pole was sufficiently guyed
and no emergency existed. and, therefore,
President Thomas was not justified in TAX
ing the law into his own hands and putting
up the pole. If a permit was refused he
lad adequate remedy at law by bill in
equity. An authority was cited to show
that whenever telegraph, telephone or cleo
tFic lighting companies desire permission
to act in a manner mourning the obstruc-
ZION or the streets, and such permission IS
denied, the proper course is to appeal to the
courts and not proceed in opposition to the
authorities. According to Mr.. Thomas
there was absolutely no justification for the
was refused, he said, application should
+ have been made for permit to renew an
old conduit of tine Electric Lighting Com
pany on 18th street, and it undoubtedly
would nave been issued.
Mr.. Redinston for the Company.
Mr.. Redington followed in behalf of the
United States Electric Lighting Company.
He advanced the proposition that the right
to maintain poles exists under congression-
al authority and not under the permits
issued by the Commissioners. If the COM
pany stood alone in the permits they
would be maintaining unlawful structures.
There is no evidence, he said to show
that the wires placed in the underground
conduits did not come, In equivalent, from
the poles. The act of 1883 was referred
to as legalizing the existing wires and au-
thorizing the company in placing such as
might be desired underground 1t was
further claimed that the act was not man
datory, but provided that some wires
might be maintained underground and
others overhead
The company stated Mr. Redington, has
placed underground about forty-six miles
OF it's wires, and at the present time MAIN
tains less than four miles of wire over
head. The result, it was claimed, carries
out the general objects Of the act of 1888.
The act Of 1883. commended Mr.. Redding-
ton. did not prohibit the future erection of
poles.
Not Subject to Control.
The second proposition of the defense, as
stated by the attorney, was to the effect
that the right granted the company under
the act of 1888 is not subject to the control
of the Commissioners. 1t was the duty Of
the company to the public to erect the
new pole without moments delay. If the
pole had fallen, the company would have
been liable for damages to every person,
and TO the owner of every piece of p-op-
erty that might have been injured by the
pole in falling. The action of the COM
pary, Mr.. Reddington admitted, should
be under the reasonable supervision of the
Commissioners, but when that supervision
became unreasonable. it was proper for
the company to go ahead and protect the
pubic at all ODDS.
Ownership of the Pole.
After recess Mr.. Reddington argued as
TO the ownership of the pole, claiming that
the electric lighting company had a perfect
right to replace the pole
Mr.. Jere NJ. Wilson followed Mr.. Redding-
ton.