Evening star., 1896-07-30

servioe." which might have been construed
ef tho United 2t.fes Eiecarle ni Mshtins sdass
Company, ana used other language. It Is
ton in tHe Interests - Of the the public i 18th Is the
sole intent Of the act. and that. therefore.
the Commissioners are free to contract
with the lowest bidder for the service.
whether the Commissioners have the
Electric Power Company "for such Of the
electric arc lamps east OF Rock creek as
may be reached BY such underground con-
that they are empowered to authorize un-
der existing legislation with regard to un-
derground conduits'' depends upon the
question whether that company is author
on the subject Of electric wires to extend
its system east of Rock creek, which, in
turn, depends upon this language in the
first clause Of the provision, for electric
IN those streets now lighted by electric arc
lights in the city of Washington, and for
necessary extensions of such service"
Not u New Phrase.
The phrase necessary extensions of such
service" in the act of 1896 is not new; it is a
repetition OF the language used by Congress
IN respect of electric lighting in this city, in
District appropriation bills for at least five
years past. The earlier appropriations for
electric lighting provided for the service
on one or more of the principal streets
maintaining existing service and
necessary extensions" while in the current
OIL! the language Is "for electric arc lighting
In those streets now lighted with
electrlc arc lights in the city of Washing
service" Va seAi
1here Is no substantial difference between
80 eeSe provisions in respect of the extensions
COnpreSs bv tic n -. IT,, .oo,
ing with an existing situation in certain
slreets or the city of Washington, that is to
say, there were certain streets then lighted
WIN electric arc lamps, for which service
appropriations had been heretofore made
and In those streets the Commissioner arr
authorized to extend the service
Inc commissioners are authorized to ex
tend the electric lighting service. They
may authorize and pay for additional lights
or course. the extension of the servic.
necessarily involves an extension of the
system or means Of furnishing the addi-
PoMar f,oaai Hghts. H The Potomac Electric
mas no underground system in Washing,
Ton east OF Rock creek and no oyerhea Il
system east of Rock creek, except in Fol-
ingtoi whereas the United States Electric
ana an underground system in Washington
east OF ROCK creek. AS the AUTHORITY of
the Commissioners to extend th. service
carries with 1t, by necessary Implication
!heir right TO permit one of the companies
10 extend Its system in order to furnish the
additional service, the question is which
company may extend its system the one
haVing system east of Rock creek to ex-
teho' or the one having no such system
The Intention Of Congress.
Since the words necessary extensions of
sCch service In the act of June IL, 1886,
are addressed to the Commissioners. and
authorize them to pay for additional eiec-
tr1c arc lights, what is the implication as
to who is to provide the means of supplying
the additional lights? The additional
nghts are to be In those streets now SO
nghted In part. Was it the intention of
Congress to authorize the Commissioners
TO permit the construction of an original
plant to supply the additional lights, or
was 1t intended that they might permit the
extension OF an existing plant in order to
reach that result? New, what Is to be i'm
piled from the language used? The statute
Is not explicit as to which of the two elec-
tric lighting companies. if either. is to fur
nlsh the means of supplying the additional
electric arc lights. 1t is not clear which
was meant. We are, Therefore, unable
from the words necessary extensions" to
determine which electric light company was
the act, in order to threw light on the OBJ
scure or ambiguous terms used.
II we refer to the context for the meaning
OF the particular words, we find the subject
- CotCd ScoSIdPuCdllS III Inc second pro-
vjso. We see there that Congress for some
reason saw fit to confine the Potomac Elec-
trlc PoWer Company in its operations to the
territory west of Rock creek, and within
the fire limits of the District.
This treatment would seem to remove all
doubt. But suppose the context does not
relieve the difficulty, and We appeal to the
history of legislation on the subject, what
do We find! On February ], 1896 the Dis
trict appropriation bill being under con-
sideration in the House. Mr.. Pitney Of New
Jersey reported the following amendment
In regard to electric lighting:
Here he quotes from the Congressional
Record Of February l, 1896, page 1850.
In the Senate.
After considerable debate the amendment
was agreed to. and the bill went to the Sem
ate, where the appropriation was raised
from $4,000 to $4,000. the price per lamp
raised from % cents to 3S cents per night,
electric lighting authorized under this ap-
preparation shall be let, after due adver-
tisement, to the lowest responsible bidder
therefor, etc, stricken out. On June 8,
1896, the District bill being again before
the House on the conference report Mr.
PitneS moved the House to recede from its
disagreement to the Senate amendment
striking out the provision of the House b.n
letting the service Of electric lighting to the
lowest bidder, etc, and agree to the same
with the following amendment.
Here he quotes from page 6s52, Congress
sional Record, June 8, 1895.
point of order being made against this
amendment 1t was, after debate, lost by a
vote of 178 to 1. The bill then went back to
the Senate. where it came up on June O.
1895, for concurrence in the House amend
ments, and, after debate, the motion to
concur in the House amendments was non
concurred in, and, on motion of Senator
Teller, conference was agreed to with the
result that the bill became a law without
the provision that the entire service of
electric lighting authorized under this ap-
preparation shall be let, after due adver-
tisement, to the lowest responsible bidder
therefor
If this proviso had been retained there
would be no doubt of the right of the Com
,nissioners to permit the lowest bidder for
electric arc lighting. whoever 1t might be,
to open the streets and put down the wires
necessary to supply the additional service
provided for.
The proviso, or its equivalent was neces-
sary 20 change existing law; Congress. as
is shown, refused to make any such change,
and left the subject as it then existed.
Another contention of the Potomac Light
and Power Company is that while not per-
mitted to do private lighting in Washing
ton city east of Rock creek, 1t may do pub
lie lighting in that territory. This propo-
sition amounts to this: If the Commits
sioners authorize additional public electric