The evening times., 1896-11-13

Argument was heard by Judge Cole to-
day on the rule issued against the Potomac
Electric Power and Lighting Company and
the District Commissioners requiring them
to show cause why the latter should not he
prohibited from contracting with the PotO-
mac company for the erection of eietrcic
light wires on the streets of the city.
1t was some time before it was finally
agreed TO go ahead with the hearing. Mr..
James X. RedingtoD, for the United States
Electric Lighting Company, claimed that
he was entitled to postponement to exam
inc the answer OF the Commissioners, which
was not filed until this morning, and which,
he argued, contained certain new matter
which he should have the right To traverse
by affidavits.
MR.. woRTHINGTON's REPLY.
Mr. A. S. Worthington, for the District.
contended that the United States Company
could have seen the answer had they de-
sired, and the new statements were only
changes in the yerbiage OF a proposed an
swer, which Mr.. Worthingtun had read.
Judge Cole refused IT, postpone the case,
and Mr.. Redington began for the piaintiff
and read its bill, in which he referred TO
the act of Congress prohibiting the erec-
ton In tn city limits or overhead telegraph,
telephone OF electric light wires, and to the
connection OF District Commissioner Trues-
ness at lexington.
He also referred to the many changes
in the names Of the Potomac Company.
Mr.. A. S. Worthington represented the
District Commissioners; Mr. j. j. Oar
liDgton the Potomac Company, and Nj.
James K. Redington and Judge Jere-
Iniah NJ. Wilson the United States Elec-
trio Lighting Company.
UNDER MANY NAMES.
ing OF the complaint OF the United States
Company, which has been printed before in
full in The Times. In this bill of COM
plaint the history of the Potomac Company
was fully given. and particular mention
was made by Mr.. Redington OF its change
in name, as seen by the articles OF incor-
poration three times flied.
1t was charged that IL was first incor-
porated as the Potomac Electric Company;
secondly, as the Potomac Light and Power
Company, and lastly as the Potomac Elec-
tric Power Company. The efforts of the
defendant to secure from the Commission
ers permits to lay conduits for the electric
lighting OF the Aqueduct bridge were re-
cited and mention made OF the temporary
injunction issued at the time. also the cr-
forts made for the stringing OF wires at
lexington.
The principal point involved seems to be
the status of the two companies. 1t was
stated in the bill of complaint that Congress
prohibited the Commissioners from Civ
ing contracts for stringing additional wires,
but allowed the Commissioners the right To
permit an existing company to lay condUits
for necessary wires.
The Commissioners sought to give this
privilege to the Potomac Company.
ITS PRIVILEGE EXCLUSIVE
The United States Company. which had
previously controlled the electric lighting,
objected ON the ground that it was the
only existing company at the time OF the
passage OF the act and entitled TO the pro
vision 1t contained.
Mr. RedlngtOn read the decision of Chief
Justice Bingham in granting the temporary
in junction; also the titles OF two hills in
Congress to authorize the extension OF the
lines OF the Potomac Electric Power Com
pauy; also the bill introduced by Mr.. Nc
MILAN, which received at the time the
approval OF the District Commissioners.
Following the reading OF the decision Of
Chief Justice Bingham, which referred to
! the authority OF the Commissioners, Judge
Cole remarked:
Il believe that the question as TO the
laulhority of the Commissioners over the
streets has been litigated ever since 1
have been in Washington"
Mr.. .Worthington responded that there was
no contention as to Jurisdiction over the
streets.
| lit is merely a question as to whether
| the Commissioners are to be confined to
one Company i'll having the streets lighted"
he said
| Mr. Redington answered Mr. Worthing-
ton, saying that he did not know what the
Commissioners might contend. In the
| preliminary hearing" he continued, lit
| was argued that general power to issue
permits existed"
READING A TIMES EDITORIAL.
| A lively tilt arose between the attorney VS.
| when Mr.. Redington read irom the Con
| Eressioual Record part OF the debate on
one OF the last bills introduced i'll Congress,
relating to electric lighting. i'll which
| debate Senator Gallingcr scored the Com
| mssioners and read an editorial from The
| Times.
Coming down to that point where the
| editorial was read by Senator Gallingel
| Mr.. Redington started to read it and was
| met with an emphatic aud immediate
| opposition by Messrs. Worthington and
Darlington. The Congress sional Record
| containing the same had been made an eN-
/ hibit Of the bill OF complaint OF the
| United States Electric Lighting Com
pany.
Notwithstanding this Mr.. Worthington
| contended that while he mad acquiesced IL
the address of Senator Gallinger, he did
object to the reading OF editorials from
newspapers, which could not properly be
| part of the bill itself.
Il Will not insist upon it, gentlemen
said Mr.. Redington, in response to the
action OF Mr.. Worthingto on and Mr.. Darling
| ton, who had sprung to their feet at the firs,
mention of The Times.
The incident was lost sight of until the
reading OF the reply of the Potomac Elec-
tric Power Company, by Mr.. Darlington
who several times made brief comment
exlanatory Of certain passages. Mr.. Red
lington sought to hold Mr.. Darlington
strictly to the answer of the defendant
and asked him IL he W as reading from tn,
bill.
/ II am" spiritedly replied Mr.. Darling
lton, land am not reading editorials from
The Times, or parts of Congressional de
bate.'
POLICY In POVERTY