Evening star., 1896-11-13
RIVAL ELECTRIC COMPANIES
Lighting Contract Comes Up in Court This
Afternoon.
Complainant Charges and the An
sVer of Defendants-kight to
Lay COnduits.

the United States Electric Light Company
against the District Commissioners and the
Potomac Electric Power Company, IL which
the complainant company seeks to enjoin
the Commissioners from entering into a
contract with the defendant company for
electric lighting In the District west Of
Rcck creek.
The complainant company was represent
ed in the hearing today by Messrs. James
K. Redington and Jeremiah Wilson, Mr. A.
S. WorthiI gton appearing on behalf of the
District Commissioners. while Mr.. ]. J.
Darlington looked after the interests Of
the defendant company.
When the case was filed last summer
the court granted temporary restraining
order. the defendants being required to
show cause why a permanent injunction
shall not be granted, and the hearing to-
day was on the rule to show cause, the
defendants meantime having filed their
answers.
The case having been taken up, Mr.. Red
irgton asked that the hearing be postponed
for a brief time. He understood that
recently filed answer had amended the first
one filed by the Commissioners, and he also
wished time to examine further the answer
OF the defendant company Counsel on the
other side. however. explained that the
answers are not materially different from
those first filed. and Judge Cole disposed Of
the request for a postponement by a state
ment to the effect that he would allow the
complainant company to traverse the an
swers should it subsequently deem such q
&C urSe necessary.
Bill of Complaint.
The hearing then proc eeded. Mr.. Red
ingtoE first reading the volumlnous bill
of complaint. In this the organiza ton of
the respective companies was set out at
ha of
Congress enacted in connection with the
laying of conduits and the erection of
poles and wires in the District.
The bill of complaint heretofore prini-
ed In The Star. refers to the provision by
the last Congress for the electric lighting
Of the streets of the city. authorizing and
directing the District Commissioners 10
make contra acts for such lighting.
In pursuance with such provision. the bill
states that the Commissioners called for
proposals, and in due time were about to
contract with the defendant company for
the electric lighting of certain streets and
avenues i'll the city east of Rock creek. 1t
was also claimed that the Commissioners
were about to permit the defendant COM
rany to erect lines and lay conduits with
which to carry out the proposed contracts.
In that connection the decision of Chief
Justice Bingham in similar proceedings was
referred to. in which the chief justice, 1t
was claimed. held that the District Com
miss.oners are without authority to grant
such permits in the absence of express
legislative authority. This opinion of Chief
Justice Bingham the complainant company
cited in support of its contention that the
District Commissioners being without au-
thority to permit the defendant company
to occupy the streets or avenues of the
District, the said defendant company could
not, therefore, carry out the contracts
sought to be made between it and the Com
missioners for electric lighting east Of Rock
creek.
fact that the Commissioners received an
opinion from their attorney. in which they
were advised that they were without au-
thority to permit the occupancy of the
streets and avenues of the city by the de-
fendant company, and that 1t could not
therefore carry out a contract to supply
electric lights east of Rock creek.
Notwithstanding that legal opinion. as
serted the complainant COMPANY, the Com
missioners. or a majority Of them. over
ruled it and proceeded in the matter of
granting the contracts and permits to the
defendant company.
Defendnnts' Answer.
The reading of the bill of complaint. and
its accompanying exhibits. was not con-
c.uded unit, late this afternoon, when
Mr.. Darlington proceeded to read the an
swer Ct the defendant company to the bill
Of complaint.
The answer set forth that the plant and
franchises of the defendant company have
cost several hundred thousand dollars, and
that 1t owns some seventy miles of wires
referring to the proceedings out of which
grew the decision of Chief Justice Bing-
hahn. the answer complained that the COM
plainant company paid all the expenses of
those suits.
or its seventy miles of wires the defend
ant company asserted that sixty miles are
west Of Rock creek, the remaining ten miles
being east of that stream, and the asser-
tior was also made that the restriction by
Congress referred to by the complainant
company applies to private electric light
Ing. and not to such lighting of the streets
and avenues of the city.
Further. 50 the defendant company an
swered, Congress in making the last appro-
priation for electric lighting did not, di-
rectly or indirectly, restrict the District
commissioners to a contract with the COM
plainant company. nor did Congress in its
said latest legislation on the subject prohib-
1t the Commissioners from granting per-
mits to the defendant company necessary
for the execution of the contracts in con-
troversy.
The hearing will be continued nv Judpe