Evening star., 1896-12-17
Court Of Appeals Refuses to Enjoin
r--s the Commissioners.
RIGHT TO CITY STREETS
Justice Alvey Defines the Courts
Position.
OWNERSHIP OF COMPANY

The Court Of Appeals today denied the
application of the United States Electric
Lighting Company for an appeal from the
decision of Judge Cole, rendered last month,
IN which Judge Cole refused to enjoin the
District Commissioners from awarding a
contract for electric lighting in the city
east of Rock creek to the Potomac Elec-
.tric Power Company. Judge Cole also re-
fused to enjoin the Commissioners from
granting permits to the Potomac company
for the necessary occupancy of the said
territory. The United States company ap-
pealed to the Court of Appeals, asking that
the appeal be allowed, and they also prayed
the appellate court to issue a preliminary
injunction pending its disposition of the
application for the allowance of the appeal.
The decision of the Court Of Appeals was
written by Mr.. Chief Justice Alvey. who,
speaking for the court. says: I'VE have
mad occasion more than once to declare
that the discretion conferred upon this
Court in the allowance of appeals under
the provision of the statute of February o.
1888, is not to be exercised in favor of al
lowing such appeals, except upon pressing
emergency, and where serious injustice
might be effected by the delay in getting
an appeal to this court in regular course
OF proceeding. AS declared by the statute
the party desiring the appeal must make 1t
appear affirmatively that justice requires
that the appeal should be allowed and that
injustice will likely be done If the appeal
Is not at once allowed. Unless this be shown
afnrmatively there is no ground for the
exercise of the discretion of the court nor
1or the departure from the regular and or
dlnary proceeding in the prosecution of ap-
peais from orders from which the right of
appeals is given Irrespective of the discre-
ton of the court
Right or Wrong.
Referring to the relief sought by the
United States Company, Mr.. Chief Justice
Alvey says that the court cannot grant it,
there being no practice or statutory power
that would allow an appellate court to
grant restraining order upon the defend
ants in the court below until the final de-
termination of the case either in the court
below o. the appellate court The only
question presented to the Court of Appeals
was whether the court below was right or
wrong in refusing to grant the injunction
proyed for. If the complainant company
mad submitted the case upon bill and an
swer for final determination and allowed
dismissing the bill, as would doubtlessly
have been done, on the view entertained
by the court, then the case would have
teen in condition for an appeal 10 this
preme Court OF the United States Upon ad-
verse decision.
Regular Proceedings.
The chief justice explains further that
the case was not so disposed Of below;
that the bill is still pending there, and no
decision by the Court of Appeals On the
appeal now sought to be taken would be
conclusive and prevent further litigation
But says the chief justice, apart from
this view of the case the facts stated in the
that the appeal prayed for is so far in the
fnteres; of justice as to require it's imme-
diate allowance. Without in The least inti-
mating an opinion as to the legal rights as
serted by the petitioners we cannot tail 10
observe that their right as. claimed, is
founded solely upon a monopoly in respect
to matter committed to the administra-
tive functions of the Commissioners of this
District. and which affectsithe public inter
est at large, and may affect it preJudicilly.
The applicants are not dispossessed of
any possessory rights Of property or any
mere rights of easement in the streets Of
the city, and If the right to exclusive
monopoly in the matter of lighting the
streets be in the petitioners, for this ap-
peal as claimed by them, 1t is not per-
ceived how the right will be to any extent
defeated ty the disalowance of the appeal
prayed for; for If the claim made by the
petitioners he a legal and exclusive one, as
alleged. their rights will be ultimately de-
clared by the courts and they will not be
prejudiced by what may be done in the
meantime. Their rights whatever they
may be, will not be defeated or lessened by
having to abide the ordinary procedure for
their determinati tion.''
The Ownership of the Company.
There fas been In the past great deal
of unforEded speculation about the Po-
tomac Light and Power Company and its
ownership" said well-known local hnan-
ctp fodo -hnn ha NJ
of the Court of Appeals was being dis
Cussed on the street. 'The Geclara ton has
been made that 1t is an alien corporation.
and its ownership has been variously cred
tied to the Cramps, to William c. Whitney
and his associates, to the WESTINGHOUSE
people and others. but the fact is that the
company Is very largely owned by Fred
erick c. Stevens, president of the West End
National Bank. and who is largely inter-