The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-11-13
THETELEPRONE CASE HEARD
KtSsrs. Meredith, Carter and Holiday
Made Arguments
THE CITY WAS SEVERELY CRITICISED.
Mr. Carter Said tho Controversy Had ITS
Origin In the Demand For and Refusal
of pee 'Phonos--Three Able Law
yers Present the Matter.

Telephone tDnpdNft OF li' "ffN
Judge Cons decision was begun and con-
cluded in the United States Circuit Court
OF Appeals yesterday before Judges 81
monitor. Brawlcy and PurnoL
CIV Attorney G.. v. Meredith opened
FOR the city. making most clear and
adroit argument in which ne weht
into an the facts involved anu
quoted many authorizes 10
,su him i'm his contention mat tne
city had the right 10 deal win the 'e'e-
phone question as DO saw ny
THE CITY CRITICISED.
wr Meredith was followed by Mr.. I'M
carter for the telephone company. lie
repled 10 the arguments advanced oy
Mr Meredith and in doing so criticised
the course Of the city for the manner
I'm which 90 had sought 20 drive out the
Bell Company.
The controversy arose over demand
made hv committee Of tie city lot
thirtv-nino free phones.
? During the correspondence between
tho clv and the company about these
'pboncs certain officers Of the city ini-
mated 10 the company that the city
would nut "a pole tax on the company
which would cost moro than the free
'nhoncs and would repeal its FRANCHISE
N the phones were not given.
z Irpon the companys refusal 10 give
the 'phoncs the city Council promptly
carried out both these intimauons'
"rho courts Of England and all In the
United states In which the question mas
arisen have declared telephone and tele-
graph companies 20 be identical so 'na'
tho name Of ono I'm laws ana acts OF 'csi''
l,tion embraces the other ,..
therefore tho act Of congress or loop
which authorizes telegraph companies 70
construct. maintain and operate us hhes
~, most roads-or streets OF the clty-'in-
braces the telephone comnany'
"1,ho cltv ordinance itself. In the hrst
H., ~ theordinance Of 1881, PROVIDES
49, permission is granted 10 the com
many 10 erect poles and run wires 'n Wy
streote 'on such routes rs may ne speCi-
God and agreed on by a resolution ol
resolutions Of the Committee on 81
from time 20 time and the h'ln s'''lo
provides for n repeal OF ms "'"i'i,''''
when desired by The city arc, ~, M W.
..r..,s rcroa1, when made. would not re-
e,,,rc tho company 10 remove its poles
"a ,,.iros already uneven If :he rights
80 be company rested only under the
~ ..s..-,,,.o q builder were 10 obtain per
,..tr-tor 20 build one hundred frame
rousee on such places as the comm
ct~oofe wore from time 20 time 10 oeslE
,,ato and mower wee deserved 10 Itp'"i
,his provision on five days notice. w ou't
g, ne contcndcd tha' houses WIlCh h''
hoen huUt whilst the ORDINANCE w
sorce at places designated by lhe co'i'''i ~
too would have 10 be pulled COW" o'i '''
repeal? .o,,aoa b,. tho
CIV ATTORNEY that the decree on the 'ouit
,... tae decided that the company Is
49, ,t,o e4roets OF the city free from aii
.t.ol az tho oitv The court mas lh"".
80 s,,ch decision. and We have NOT uaI IN
- aep Cor n. The city Is seeking not u, ~
control the company. hut 10 u'H.lo ~
- II would not consent 20 give up
r,e riobis under the act OF oon'i'7' I,lD
ael,ve- itself bound hand ana loo' 10 ,i'
lander rercics Of thc city IL - '', tim ~,
ing sentence of death ON u.s. "n" a.,
ssl,rr not for freedom from control D"'
simply for lifc ..,,,.
TENDERED TAXES
..y.o have rendered taxes. which the Guy
, rof,eed twice We have apphed ~
a. c,t, FOR permission TO replace rot''Il
Ia danoerous poles and have been me-
r-i,h refusal The city denies US VIZ
riobt given us 10y the act oil 'o'si 80 20.
Nonrtrpct. maintain and operate our
No. Am ns streets and the court has
I.,nl, said that We are entitled 10 tuIs
'-t, and reserved Tor the future the o'-
,ieiou Of how much control the '"S 0'
proporlv exercise over us. Al,
Having disposed Of this feature oi w,
natter Mr.. Carter concluded ms aiHu'"''
-. onotin. authorities TO sustain the 'oh'
fer{tion Of the company that il h"u '"'
-irht 10 continue 20 do business mere,
UrpcE HOLLADAY'S ARGO MEM.
91O o'clock Judge a. l.. Holiday
commenced his argument tor the company
lie said the question before me court c"iii'
under the state law and the city orul
roncos lie proposed ito take up the
discussion from the point of view as inc
oct OF Congress so included u. lie Wou'
DIS. as show that 10 was % part of the
telegraph lines which. under the inter
,aate commerce law. were a part of th'
n.gfa. lines and routes as established
l., Congress. Judge Holiday cited mum
her of cases bearing upon the controVer
~ under consideration. and endeavoret
Ia rrovc bv some of these that there
IS 40 material difference between tn
telegraph and Tho telephone, so far as tn
principle and operation of the two arr
concerned ~ Congress had a right u
establish post-rOads and postal lines FOL
tnq pur1lose ol transmission Of ntelll
gtnce from one part of the countrs u
another. and for Recommendation be
tween various parts of tine country. il ha'
a right TO include the telegraph and th'
telephones in carrying ont these purposes
Judge Holiday referred TO :he Bel
pateuts ln the telephone system, and ar
gued that these were but an Improve
meqt I'm electric telegraphy. This wa
following In the line Of thought held b,
MI Justice stephen. Mr.. Bell himself
who invented the Improvements hell
that they were only an advance step il
telecraphy. There is no distinction bee
tween a telegraph and q telephone, d
slated Several cases from the Suprem
Court IN Wisconsin and elsewhere wer
cited 90 set forth this limo Of argum MI
The question had arisen I'm the court
Of Maryland said ne. 10y reason OF a
agreement reached by the Western Unto
telegraph Company. the Bell Telcphon
Company and the Southern Bell Tele
phone Company i'm transmitting cer;ai
GLASSES OF messages.
THE SAND IN PRINCIPLE.
A Baltimore company had refused [
transmit certain messages. said he. reach
iag 10 through its rival company, and IN
courts ISSUED a mandamus compelling thi
company To transmit the messages upo
the ground that she tclcgrap
and telephone were practically IN
same IN principle. In New Jei
scy question involving con
trovcrsy as TO whether telephone com
pnny had right 20 condemn ceriai
property The court held. in deciding "a