Evening star., 1896-07-30

and when We consider the express reserva-
ton ~ fpe power Of Congress to allow this
use IN the original grant to the company,
1stn IN tho third seStion of that sct and
foot Of the track or tracks Of the road has
been prescribed by Congress. and that
every change expediency required has been
previously authorized by Congress. We can
see no place for the assertion Of any right
| In the company to make other tracks or
changes OF location Of those now existing
without an act giving the consent OF that
body
The right to use the streets and avenues
OF this city for electric light conduits is an
extraordinary use. and in my judgment is
| IN the same category as their use for rail-
road purposes
The result Of the cases on this subject is
stated by Judge Dillon in his work on
| municipal corporations: Legislative sane
| ticn directly given, or mediately conferred
through proper municipal action is neces-
sary to authorize the use of streets for the
| posts and wires of q telegraph or telephone
company. IL such posts be erected within
.ne limits OF street or highway, without
such sanction they are nuisance but IL the
erection be thus authorized they are not
hateVer power the municipality has on
,hls subject must be granted TO 1t by the
ise re- STATURE. cd Dill. Nun. Corp, Sec.
No Difference In Principle,
am unable to perceive any difference in
principle between lighting the streets with
eiectrlcity and lighting them with gas;
| coulo IL DE successfully contended that
Inc dulhori.y annually given the Com
inlsslonerS to contract for gas lighting
would authorize them, either expressly. or
Dy necessary implication, to permit the
| iayihe Vi gas mains In the streets by other
COMPANIES than those already authorized
ny Congress TO lay such mains in the event
the commissioners should invite bids for
gas nsnuhs ana the existing companies
should be ulderbid.
II Congress mad not before June IL lS.t;
| leSislated on the subject, the question now
presented would Le easier OF solution and
IL might in that event be well contended
lhat the authority 10 pay for add.t!ona.
eIectflc NShts Carried win ii, by ueces-
sar! implication, power in the Commls-
| sioners to permit The occupancy of the
streets Tor tnat purpose.
lhe act OF Congress of June II, 1896 al
lows neither OF the electric companies to
extend its system in the territory formerly
known as GeorSetown except that the eX-
islnS electric Eght company in that ter
ritory having overhead wires may extend
sucn system west OF Rock creek within the
nre limits, for the period CT eight months
AS 10 the rule that statutes in pari ma
lerld are 10 be construed together, and
that any Change OF pnraseology in the la ter
sldlule must ue ned 10 have been de-
slghediy made. and with view to chang
Ing the legal effect OF prior statutes, coun-
| Sci FOR the Potomac Light and Power Com
pany cites some cases IN support of his po-
sltion. In the principal case ,kich VS. Key
| Ser, o4 IA. St, So. from which he quotes
| at length, the court said:
men, knowing this chat the act Of l1.a
| mad received Judlclai construction), and yet
not following II, but Substi uting for IL diff
terent Language, did they no, mean that
We snouid conStrue their language accord
| ing TO ats ordinary import? l see no ground
| Ior JUDICIAL construction TO rest upon. In
| deed. the words of statue, when unam-
he iApl. Ia
tive Will
1t is sufficient in reply TO say that the
cause OF the act Of Congress Of June IL,
IS3o IN regard to electric lighting wher,
considered as an entirety, is unamDiguous
ana hence the rules invoked do not apply
For, as was said 10y MIR. Justice Clit1ord,
Speaking for the Supreme Court of the
United States tBarnes VS. The Railroads.
IL Wall, 3u2):
W here a section clause of a statute
Is ainplg uous much aid, IL l. admitted ma 4
pe derived IN asceriainlng It's meaning oy.
oupdflnS the section or ella use in question
with prior statutes IN pari materia bur n
cannot DC admitted that such d resort is a
proper one where the language employed
py the legislature is plan and free of an
uncertainty, as the true rule in such a case
Is TO mold that the statute speaks its own
construction"
The language of the provision in oues-
llon IN the act of June IL, ls1, is TO be
construed according to Its ordinary impor,
SO constituting II. 1 cannot agree vita the
contention of the learned counsel.
referring TO the debates in Congress on
the clauses in the District appropria zion
Dill IN question, TO which you call nay at
tention, If they Were admissible as evil
dehce OF the meaning Of said clauses, they
confirm the views herein expressed
Fotomac's Bid Should Not Be Enter
tanned.
In view of the foregoing considerations
and inasmuch as the Potomac Light and
Power Company has no electric light sys-
tenn IN the city of Washington east of Rock
greek which may be extended, its bid to
furnish electric arc lights in that territory
should not be entertained