The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1897-10-26

| MI. 3 T. Thomas, attorney for the Dis
| trict. has reached an important opinion a :
| to the right OF the United States Electric
| Lighting Company 10 open Ninth street
northwest, for the laying of a conduit
from X street northwest, to Grant avenue,
! Columbia Heights
The electric company made application
| some tine ago foI the privilege of extend
| ing it's Ninth street conduit for the purpose
| of gaining access 10 the northern suburbs
| The matter was submitted to Mr.. Thomas
for hi, opinion, the principal point being
| that the potoHac company already has
conduit along the line proposed by the
United States COMPANY, and there would
| be Ii pTa"ticai uuII-caJun IL .he Request
of the United States people Were grant al
The Potomac people submitted a brief
| To Mr.. Thomas stating their objections
and the United States Company also sub
mitted brief Of its side uf the case
Mr. Thomas opinion is favorable to the
granting OF the permit. lie says in part:
| have carefully considered the appli-
| cation of the u nited States Electric Light
underground conduit from Ninth and
streets northwest to Columbia Heights,
which YOU referred To me for opinion.
| Tie electric lighting clause in the Dis
| trict appropriation biil, approved June l,
| $50 90 Stat, 4ul), contains, among other
| things, the following:
And the United states Electric Light
| ing Company may extend it, under ground
| conduits and wires east or Rock Greek and
| within said fire limits to Mount Pleasant
| and Washington and Columbia Heights I'M
| der such regulations as the Commissioners
| oI the district OF Columbia may prescribe.
| In the clause IN the District hin Of March
| 3, 1897, t29 stat 673) in regard To
| electric lighting. occurs the following.
| Until Congress shall provide for a con
| duit system IL shall he unlawful To lay
Conduits or To erect overhead wires for
! electric lighting purpOsesin any road, street,
| avenue, highway, park, or reservation, eN-
| Cept as hereafter specifically authorized
s,I, hs c-'nu, ,,rar.o, rS.,
United States Electric Lighting Company
from the extending conduIJs into Columbia
| Heights, Washington Heights and Mount
| Pleasant.
| In the electric lighting clause in the
deficiency bill approved June !, sb7, the
provision IN the act OF March 3, SS7, that
| the United states Electric Lighting Com
pany shall not BE- prevented from eNtenung
/ ITS conduits and wires o. Columbia Heights,
Washington Heights and Mount Pleasant,
Ia the brief of counsel for the United
| States Electric Lighting Company IL is
| nothing Ia do with the matter, except to
| regulate the location Of the cOndutS IL the
street OF pavement, the depth OF the con-
duiI beneath the surface, or subway To he
| laid, and the loca tiUn Of the nanboles.
the Otuer manu-, counsel iGI tiar 4 OTTO
mac Electric Power Company contends that
the exercise of the right OF the United
states Electric Lighting Company TO cx-
| tend its condults and wires II subject TO
the discretion and control OF toe Com
missiOners.
III insisted that the proposed extern
sion Is unnecessary. anu that the uiScre-
ton of the Commissioners should TIE eNeT-
cised against az, because. II allowed, IL will
paralIs the conuuitsoT the Potomac Electric
Power Company.
The question involved in this application
| is whether, in view of the words IN the act
of 1896, under such regulations as the
Commissioners may prescribe,
the Commissioners ma ydcslcnatet he streets
in which the L nited states Electric Light
ing Company may extend Its COnduts
and wires; W neither they, and not the com
pany, may determine what Conduits and
wires IL may extend, or whether those
words We're INTENDED 10 refer To matters OF
detail such, for example, as the location
and character OF cOndults, theiT depth, the
repair OF pavements, etc. III the Commits
sioners hav. no discre ion 10 designate the
streets ia which the extension shall be
made, then it is imInaterial that the pro-
posed extension viii parallel the condults
and wires Of another company.
The act of June IL, 1886, grants To the
United states Electric Lighting Company
the privilege OF extending its conduits and
wires 10 three specified suburbs OF this
city. IL Dies not confer upon the Comnis
siuners power 10 permit the company TO
extend it's conduitS ana wires. Ia Al ,'ts,
then It might well tie commended that the
Commissioners Possessed the discretion To
designate tine streets ia which tine extern
sions might be made.
Now what is the situation The United
States Electric Lighting Company has UNI
foreground conduits and wires in Ninth
street. These cOnduits and wires are its
property audit asks permission o the Com
mssioncrs to open the streets that IL may
extend those oonduits and wires To thethree
suburbs named.
My Ilrst impression OF This subject was
that the Commissioners had the right To
designate the streets in which the United
states Electric Lighting Company might
extend its conduits and wires, under the
act OF 1896.
But on a closer reading Of the Statutes,
| am satisfied such was not the intention
Of Congress; that the exercise or such
power would be to take from the United
states Electric Lighting Company the right
to extend its conduits and wires; right
expressly conferred upon Ii by Co gress
rather than To regulate the exercise Z the
right.
In my judgment the word Regulation
as used in the act of June IL, 1895, was
intended 10y Congress TO refer 10 such rules
as the Commissioners might adopt as to
the method of doing the work. In other
words. that the United states Electric
Lighting C0mps , ID eT,e dnsnrS MS o4 3he
method and style prescribed by the Com
miSsioners.
Ny opinion is the United States Electric
Lighting Company is entitled 10 extend its
contluits and wires in Ninth street to Co
lumbia Heights, under such regulations as
Ia the method of doing the work the
Commissioners may prescribe, and that the
present application should be granted.
There viii be meeting of the board
Tomorrow for hearing of the case before
the Commissioners take final action Oh
the matter. Both companies will be
represented, and both will make strenuous
efforts, IL is said, as the right to lie
granted or refused il a large one, in
.olying considerable valuable territory.
TuE KARL DECKER RANOCEI.