The evening times., 1896-11-14

The real argument in the injunction case
of The United STATES Electric Lighting
Company against the District Commis-
sioners and the Potomac Electric Power
Company was begun this morning before
Judge Cole by Mr.. j. j. Darlington, Tor the
Potomac Company, who saiu tndt The con
troversy was over three points OF an act OF
Congress, and whether the complainant com
pany has Il monopoly or the District Com
nlssioners have right TO look iurther
and make contracts for the public good.
The real question:" he said, hinges on
four words OF the act in controversy. Those
words are necessary extensions or SAID
service"
His announcement OF the line OF argu-
menL contained a reference to the question
OF general legal power OF the Commissioners
to grant permits. ''If," he said, 'the Com
missioners have a general power, then both
companies are subject To the jurisdiction
OF the Commissioners. II, on the other
hand the Commissioners have no such gen
eral authority, neither OF the companies
have any right, only SO far as given in the
act of Congress.
MIR. Darlington referred to st. Louis
decision against the Western Union Iele-
graph Company, in which il was held that
where the plaintiff controlled the repair
of the streets II also controlled the right
OF stringing the telegraph wires
Mr. Darlington alleged that briefly the
present contention of the United states
Company was that the Commissioners have
no legal authority to make contract with
the Potomac Company, OF. in other words,
that the United States Company have the
sole right under existing law to such service
WHAT CONGRESS DIDN'T INTEND.
Returning to the Legislation OF Congress in
providing Iur the electric lighting Of the
streets, Ec argued that Congress In It's last
act made a radical depa rture from former
bills IN Jne phraseology oi That part refer
ring to electric lighting The change In
phraseology, he contended, was just what
Indicated that Congress did not propose To
grant, "A monopoly to the United States Con-
pany. In former legislation there was d
certain ambiguity in the language OF the
act, which might De thought to mean 10
confer monopoly, but at the time OF the
passag ge of the last act there was cOnsIdera-
BILE opposition to a monopoly, and Congress
so changed the language OF the act as 10
forbid any construction OF the passage as
meaning exclusive right to the United
states Company. The attorney read sew
eral opinions on this point, and explained
that TINS point had been submitted TO Mr..
Thomas, who replied that it was not ap-
nlicahle To the District, because the act
was not ambiguous as claimed, and the
DDtHN dplNiIN W o"NNN -
pressions. -
Now, submit" argued Mr.. Darling
ton, that the passage for the electric
arc lighting in the streets of Washington
and-tbe necessary extension OF such ser
vice is ambiguouso
The next point made by Mr.. Darling
ton was that the f1aim OF the United
states Company that The Potomac Company
was limi ted to territory west OF Rock Greek
was wrong. He read the provision re-
ferred to, and claimed that il had NO par
ticular reference 10 electric lighting, dnd
IL 1t had il also limited the United states
Company, which had wires in Georgetuwn,
Us well. He read the following provision:
The said Commissioners may also au-
thurize any such existing electric light
company TO construct and use, under such
regulations as the Commissioners may Iix,
couduits for the reception of existing over
head wires within the territory formerly
known as Georgetown, andeNtend the same
by the aggregate of not more than one
and a quarter miles in the same territory
Judge Cole asked il the United states
COMPANY had service in Georgetown at the
time of the passage of the bill read : well
as East of Rock Creek, and Mr.. RedinEton
replied arfirmatiyely, but at the suggestion
of Cant. Thomas explained that the United
States Company's wires were all under
ground and not overhead.
CALLS IT AN ABSURD CLAIM.
The complainant company says it has
an implied and guaranteed monopoly III TIT
city," contiued Mr.. Dariing gton, and with
out any disrespeCt, l must say this is not
only an absurd but grotesque claim.
Would they say that IL Congress iimiIed
the excise board to 500 additional liquol
licenses. that only a man who had a
license could get one OF the additional
ones"
Mr., Darlington argued as to the status o
n MONOPOLY and then explained what the
Potomac Company claims.
First, this is a public act. proceeded
Mr.. Darlington, land is construed as pub
| lie act We contend Congress had no en-
i'm view 9th er than the best interests of thu
! company; second, the Interpretation put
upop the passages by the Commissioner:
and Mr Wilson, superintendent of build
| ings and grounds. is the natural intention ol
| the language; third, have examined into
| the meaning of the word said in the pass
| age necessary extensions of said service.
| and / find 1t means tn at kind and no
| one certain person 5 service, but that KIND
| previously acted upon; lastly, there W as m
| rea son for comforting a monopoly npon tn
| United States Company; there was no con
| sideration for such grant, and without con
sideration tn ere can be no such action y
Mr. James X. Redington, for the Unitc'
| States Company, repiicu 10 Mr. DarihStoi
| The Commissioners he characterized a
J merely the agents of the government. Tn
| uripcipal thing he said, would tr, to under
| stand the status of the United States CON
pany at tn e time Of tile passa &c of the act o
| 1896, and til estatus of the PotomacC Compan
at tn e same time, as applied to the situation
| When their status was SEEN all claim Q
| ambiguity in the passage disappears, an,
| it becomes as clear as the MONDAY sun.
MR.. REDINGToN'S REPLY.
"We have the exclusive right, as claimed
said Mr. Remington, in reply, by legisla
ton of Congress giving us that right ant
| continuing to allow US that right. The ac
of 1891 referred to by Mr.. Darlington a
the only one upon which we base our claiu
is only link in tile chain Of Legislation
granting us that Jurisdiction, and no othe
| company has been authorized to do tn,
work we have done and are doing.
Down to June 8, 1896, the Potomac
Company and none Of its predecessors hel'
a legal franchise, nor did it own single
| pole or single wire erected in the District
Mr. Redington argued that the presen
board of Commissioners and its predecess
ors are bound by the doctrine that ever.
power over the streets of the District mus
| proceed from Congress.
| 1T has been held by the Commissioner
that they had jurisdiction from the munci
| pality over the streets. Now, have locke,