The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-01-15
THE SOUTHERN BELL CASE,
Its Injunction Against the City Argued
Before Judge Golf Yesterday.
A DECISION EXPECTED FEBRUARY I'd.
MIR. &. v. Meredith Appeared for the CITY,
His Able Argument-Msssrs. Hill Car
ter and a. l.. Holiday Represent
the Bell Telephone Company.

day in hearing arguments In the inJunc-
ton suit of the Southern Bell Telephone
Company against the city OF Richmond
Mr.. c. V. Meredith ably represented the
city, and Messrs. Hill Carter and a. L.
Holiday appeared in behalf OF the Bel
Company, making exhaustive arguments.
The case was submitted at oclock yes
terday afternoon, and a decision is ex-
pected about February ID.
As has been fully set forth here
tofore the ground upon which the
Bell Company applied for an INJUNCTION,
and upon which II was granted by Judge
Cor, was that the lines OF the company
were, under the laws OF the United States,
a part OF the postal system OF the coun-
try, ana. az such necessary adJuncls 10
interstate commerce.
When the Injunction was first grant
Cd 10 was made returnaDlc November
H., 1895. AZ that time, however, MT. =.
y. Meredith. the city Attorney, was just
recovering from spell OF sickness ana
was not able 10 argue the case. lie ac-
cOrdingly filed brief and the hearing OK
the case was postponed until this morn
Ing.
THE COURT CONVENES.
Court was opened promptly at II
O'Clock. ana counsel We're duiy on manu.
each one armed with u formidable array
Of legal authority.
Mr. Meredith nrst addressed the court
IN powerful speech. Driatllnb wiz
citations from authorities. Mr.. Meredith
in his argument made the following
points. .,,s
First-That IL appears. by the plaintiffs
own showing. that IL IS not entitled 10
the relief prayed FOR.
SccOnd-That the act OF Congress, en-
titled An act TO aid I'm the construction
OF the telegraph lines, and TO secure 10
the Government the use Of the same
for postal. military, and other purposes,
which is cited as furnishing protection 10
the Bell Company. does not apply TO the
said company, but only TO telegraph COM
Third-That II the act above referred
10 does apply at all to the Beu Co ON,
pany, 10 does not give 1t the right 70 run
it's lines along the streets of Hlcnmouu
without the consent Of the city anu sun
icct to reasonable regulations as 10
routes number of pclcs, pay Tor the use
Tonrth,That If the act Of Congress
above referred 10 frees the company from
the control Of the city, II Is uncOnstltu-
tional. and therefore. void.
Fifth-That notwithstanding the power
of Congress i'm matters OF interstate COM
meice and the act OF Congress mention
cd the Bell Company has no right 10
occupy the streets Of Richmond without
the cltv's consent and subject TO proper
restrictions.
sixth-That the manner Of determining
the routes OF the poles and wires or the
said company. and the compensation 20
be paid the city, was agreed upon IN the
ordinance granting the franchise 20 the
Bell Company. enacted June -, ls,+ upon
condition that the city should reserve the
right to require the complainant 70 re-
move its poles and wires az the eApl'"-
ton Of twelve months.
Seventh-That I'm passing the ordnance
approved December IL. 1921, requiring the
Bell Company 10 remove IT'S poles ana
wires the city Of Richmond merely eN-
ercised the power rightfully reserved lh
the ordinance granting IL FRANCHISE app
proved June %. l,>i
Eighth-That under the statute or VIZ
glnla. referred 10 in the BIN Of complaint
Of the Bell company. the city was given
authority 20 reserve tho right 10 revoke
the companys franchise.
Ninth-That the power 70 revoke the
Bell Companys franchise has been prop
erlv exercised 90 the ordinance requiring
IT. 10 remove its poles and lines, approved
December u. 1894.
MR. MEREDITH ARGUES.
Mr.. Meredith elaborated the points
above mentioned and brought ont new
ones. His strongest contention was that
the Bell Company. having no connections
outside the state could not bee said 10
be under the protection of the interstate
commerce laws. The Richmond Tx
change OF the Southern Bell Telephone
Company was. he said. purely a local
affair. and not boo any way affected by
the United States laws in regard TO inter-
state commerce.
.The franchise TO erect its lines I'm the
city OF Richmond" said Mr.. Meredith.
was granted I'm 1854. while the United
States law under which they claim pro
lection was not enacted until lss9. How
did this company, then, exist during the
five years intervening2
"I claim" he continued. that the Bell
Company under the Constitution, IS en-
titled 20 some proper route but not 10
any particular route. and that they have
not the right 90 force their lines upon
the city, against the Will OF tho city.
Yet here they are saying that they will
not keep their contract; they will run
their lines. and Will appeal 10 the courts
to sustain them"
MIR. HOLIDAY REPLIES.
when Mr.. Meredith concluded. Judge
Holiday addressed the court in behalf
% the Bell Company. lie gave a BRIEF
history of the establishment Of the Bell
lines i'm Richmond. and also narrated the
trouble between the company and the
city. when the latter had applied for
thirty-nine free phones for the use OF
read the letter written the city by the
Bell Company. Offering phones at haG
price. hut declining 20 furnish them free.
If. said Judge Holiday. the Bell Com
pany had furnished thirty-nine free
phones. it would then have been paying
10 the city more than 5000 per annum.
The speaker said he called attention 20
this matter 10 show how ready the COM
pany had been 20 respond as far as pos
sible TO the cltys demands. He then
drew the courts attention 10 the fact
that the revocation Of the Bell Company's
franchise had closely followed its refusal
TO grant free phones 10 the city
Judge Holiday then argued at length
to prove that the Bell system was a part
OF the United States postal system Ii
was OF great service, he said. 20 the
Postofice Department, and saved the
handling Of much mail. The speaker as
serted further that the telephone and tel
egraph was one and the same. since the
same wire could be used for both pur-
poses. He quoted legal authorities 70
sustain his contention.
Judge Holiday met the statement of
Mr.. Meredith that the Bell Company was
not engaged I'm interstate commerce be-
cause II had no connections outside the
state by the argument that telephone
and telegraph companies We're the same,
and that the Bell Company had a con-
tract with the Western Union Telegraph
Company by which messages sent to this
Companys office over the phone were
transmitted by the Western Unions wires
TO other States This. he said, proved
clearly that the Bell Company was en-