Evening star., 1896-11-14
The CASE ARGUED
Electric Lighting Problem Before the
Local Courts.
Mr.. DARLINGTON HOLDS THE FLOOR
Denial That Congress Created Any
Monopoly.
L III E o L II f r IDE

The hearing in the case of the J-nitad
States Electric Light Company against the
District Commissioners and the Potomac
Electric Power Company in which the
commissioners are sought to be enioin .d
from contracting with the defendant COM
pany Tor electric lighting i'm the city east
OF ROCK creek, and frcm granting the de-
ichdant company permits 10 occupy streets
and avenues for such a purpose was re-
suIned before Judge Cole TODAY. Yesterday
the bill of complaint was read TO the court
counsel for the defendant COMPANY and the
commissioners reading their answers There
TO- as stated in The Star, the answer of the
COMMISSIONERS being practically similar to
that MED by the company sought to be en-
joined. Today counsel on either side argued
the question at issue.
Mr.. DnrIington's Argument.
The arguments. Were commenced by Mr..
}. j. Darlington, on behalf of the Potomac
Electric Power Company. He discussed the
piii Vi compliant very minutely, contending
that the language of Congress is so MAN
in relation to the matter that there can he
not the slightest doubt of its plain intent
he denied that Congress has ever directly
or indirectly, given either of the contend
ing companies monopoly OF e.th,.r The oc-
e"pdHSs VI HRnlnR OF the streets and
avenues of the District. On tho contrary
SAID Mr. Darlington Congress in proyid ng
Tor the contracts at issue mentioned ANY
existing company" and not in express lam
company.
Has the complainant company" asked
Judge Cole, wires west of Rock creek"
Yes, sir, replied Mr.. A. 5. Worthington.
special attorney for the District: both
companies have wires on both sides of that
stream
II did not know" explained the court
but that il might be contended that the
respective companies enjoyed a division OF
the territory"
Mr. Darlington explained that il was not
GAINED that Congress has divided the ter
rltory, and then he went on to review tho
various acts of Congress relative to slac
trlc lShtinS and power, and referred to the
claim of the complainant company of a
Eohopoiy IN such matters being gro
tesque, TO say the least. AS he understood
the case, said Mr.. Darlington il appeare5
mat the United States Electric Light Corn
p2ny claimed that il is the only counanv
nere authorlzed by Congress to occupy the
streets ana avenues of the city east of
hock creek. and, therefore the only COM
parry authorized ito contract fer the light
ing OF these streets and avenues
CONGREGATIONAL Intention.
congress, argued Mr.. Darlington. never
SO intended to be understood, and he in-
sisted that the late act of Congress re-
ferring to such contracts is a public one
and. being such. must be construed TO mean
that the contracts should not be limited In
either OF the two contcnding companies
In other words. explained Mr. Darlington
the act should be continued as intending
that the contracts should be awarded in
the best interests of the District. Congress
giving no particular corporation an ex-
elusive right in the matter The act has
been construed by the District Commits
sioners. he explained. as meaning that
either OF the two companies ca II contrac.
Tor the lighting of the streets and avenues
east OF Rock creek. construction con-
CURED in by the commissioner of public
buildings and grounds. and he defied any
impartial person TO otherwise construe the
act in question. And said Mr. Darlington
IN conclusion, the United States Electric
Light company, although claiming to en-
JOY. through legislative action. a MONOPOLY
IN the matter, has shown no consideration
for it, even having been Incorporated out
Side the District, in West Virginia.
Mr.. Rcdineton Follows
Mr.. Darlington was followed by Mr.. Jas.
X. Redington, who addressed the court in
support of the prayers of the United States
Electric Light Company. The question of
a monopoly, be contended at the outset.
has nothing to do with the questions ct
issue in the case The Distric; is the child
OF congress, and its parent can do what
II deems best for il. He explained that
the complainant company has never con-
tended, as the other side seemed to imagine
that the company was esta blished and en-
powered by appropriation acts alone bu:
that Congress has specially recognized and
estaplshed II in other acts. But not so,
said Mr.. Redington, in the case of the
defendant company, the latter never having
received the authority to do the things
congress bas expressly authorized the
complainant company to do.
The District Commissioners contende6
Mr. Redington, have no inherent authority
10 permit the occupancy of the streets and
avenues Of the city by either overhead or
underground wires. and they cannot there
1cre, lawfully grant the permits desired by
the Potomac Electric Power Company not
even TO allow IL TO carry out the contract
they seek to make with such company
Mr. Redineton will be followed by Mr.
Jere NJ. Wilson, on behalf of the co,npla,n-
ant company, and Mr.. Worthington VIII
make the closing argument, speaking on
cehalf OF the District Commissioners In is
doubtful If the hearing can be concluded