The evening times., 1896-11-30

proper tuUslruC1lDU. Sstlu Iut 'thib, ~
does not aid the contention that the United
States Company alone can perform the
service: besides. it is by no means clear mat
the words extensions Of such service con
fine the extensions to the streets already
lighted. II was more likely tn. intention
of Congress to refer the locality OF such ex-
tensions TO the discretion Of the CurniHis-
siOnerS.'
Judge Cole characterized as absurd the
claim that a grant 10 the Potomac Company
for electric lighting i'll Getrgetown promo
ted IT from doing tue additional publiclight-
ing ea st of Rock Greek. lfit did so II also
prohibited the United StsItes Company, be-
casGe the latter had also received such
permit for lighting in GeOrgctown.
The court related the history of Con
gressional enactment concerning electric
lighting which the United states Com
pany claim ed formed a chain OF legislative
authority Tor It's exclusive rights Partic-
ular mention was In ade in the decision OF
bill introduced in the senate at tie last ses
sion. having for its purpose the express
granting of right to occupy the streets east
of Rock Creek. The complainant laid great
STRESS on the fact that Congress refused to
give such power to the Potomac Company.
but Judge Cole held that the facts recited
did not sustain the allegation, because, he
said Congress has not refused, but failed to
act. 1t may hereafter act.
The decision held that there was nothing
in the history Of prior or subsequent lcgis-
latiOu which limited the defendant com
pany to the territory west of Rock Creek.
COMMISS SSIOSERS NOT RESTRICTED
Judge Cole decided that the act of 1891
does not in terms restrict the { ommis siuTi.rs
to permitting existing overhead wires to
bc put underground. as did the acts OF
1883 and 1883. 1t was argued by the
plaintiff that it bad buried miles Of its
in, httit 81 Or annrpNHI ny the
electrical commission. and that Congress
was cognizant of the fact. This, 1t was
claimed, was done before the act of 1881,
which contained provision for ''addi
tional construction and maintaining
existing service - This language was
introduced for the first time in tine act of
1891, and had been continued up to the
present time, which, the United States
Company said, indicated that such con
structior" and service meant their own
underground system.
Judge Cole held that the clauses referred
to did not neCessa rily mean having the serv-
ice done by the same person or company. 1t
might he construed to refer to the character
of the conduit or wire Judge Cole men
toned the point that the words in contrO-
versy did not appear in the act of 1886. nor
was there anything of like meaning substi-
tuted for them. and, therefore. it IN ust be
understood that the intention of Congress
was not to grant any snch exclusive right
under consideration. The change of Ian
qua ce must be held to eyinCe change OF
purpose.
Judge Cole, continuing on this line, held
that granting that monopoly had been
conferred on the United States Company,
it could be revoked by Congress i'll IFS acts
Of S96. He said:
at does not seem that the language Of
any of these acts evince any intention on
the part Of Congress of granting )r creating
any exclusive rights in the complainant or
= aLy other corporation or person. The only
point intende to be now decided iii rela-
ton to the act of March 8, S91, is that
neither it alone, nor taken in connection
with other legislation, conferred any eS-
elusive rights or privileges upon the com
plainant or restrained the Commissioners
from granting such permits as that act
authorizes to any corporation or individual
which in their judgment would best sub
serve the public interests"
DOUBT FATALTO THE CLAIM.
Judge Cole held that where a claim is
made of exclusive right or privilege by
legislative enactment, the rules of con-
struction require the courts to construe the
statues most strongly against the party
claiming such right. He said:
Every reasonable, doubt is TO be re
solved adversely. RQ1hing is to be taken
as conceded, but Hhaf is given in unmis
taxable terms. The affirmative must be
shown. Silence is fnegation, and doubt is
fatal to the claim.l'
In the present Ease he decided that If
Congress had intended at any time to con-
fer any exclusive rights upon the COM
plainant, it would baye done so by naming
1T in the enactmeIA, but this had not been
done. If it had b9enS4he intention of Con-
gress to create a monopoly in the United
States Company, it would have done so by
failed to do so, and no implication arises
which is SO clear as to warrant the court
in recognizing and enforcing such alleged
right.
Judge Cole dismissed the point referring
TO the lack of power in the Commissioners
to make a contract exceptby the unanimous
consent of each one by saying that, while
the third Commissioner diSsented, it ap-
peared that he did so acting upon the be-
lief of a want of power, and that it was
stated at the hearing that he would join
in the contract If the courts decided that
the power for them to make the same ex-
listed. That point, therefore, should not
be considered.
The court concluded by denying the mo-
tior for an injunction and discharging the
rule and temporary Restraining order against
the defendants. .
DIR. Jameson Somewhat Improved.
London. Nov. 30.-The physicians of Hol-
loway jail report that the health of DR..
l.. S. Jameson, the Transyaal raider, which
was reported last week to be in a critical