The times., 1897-12-12
FIGHTING OVER coNpUrrs.
Potomac Gompany's Injunction Suit
Up for Trial

y II AOi L
The ease of tue Potomac Electria Pc wer
Company. against the United states Elec-
tric Lighting Company and the District
Commissioners was up before Judge Hag-
ner in equity court No. 2 yesterday for the
reading of the answers OF the defendants
petiticr was filed by the Potomac Com
pany two weeSs ago for an Injunction 10
prevent the United states Company from
completing the Ninth street conduit, ror
which il recently received permit from
the Commissioners; and also for an in
junction against the Commissioners gram
ing any further permits to the company.
As will be remembered, the United States
Company obtained the permit TO put .iown
the Ninti street conduit only after bitter
fight bv the rival company. Soon after
the United States Company asked for
another permit TO extends all its other nort-l-
bound conduits, several in number. This
permit the Commissioners were consider
ing.
The answers were filed yesterday by
Attorneys Reddington and Jere Wilson for
the United States Company, aud 5. T.
| Thomas the attorney for the District.
| Messfs A. s. Wcrthington and j. j, Oar
| Iington represented the Potomac Company.
| Messrs. A. s. worthington and ]. j. Dar-
| lington represented the Potomac Compan ny.
| The reading OF the answers occupied
| nearly all day
The answer Of the United States COMPANY
! recited all the arguments made BY the
company before the commissioners last
| Month when the application for the perr:lt
| was made, q full report of which was made
| In The Times.
| IL reCited the fact that a vigorous pro
! test was made by the Potomac Company
at the time the permit was asked fer.
In brief, it is stated that the acts of
| June IL, 1856, and March 3, 1897 are fun
| authority OF Law for the extension of the
| Ninth street conduit, and that the eN
! tensions sought are absolutely necessary
| if the company is to light the subdivisions
| north of Florida avenue, as the acts pro-
| vide. 1t is contended that the extensions
| are not sought for the purpose of get
| ting wires within the city. The an
swer also says that the Commission
ers have in their possession letters
| froIn Senator Mcmillan and Congressman
| Mahlon Pitney, the people most largely
| Responsible for the electric light legisla
| ton, stating the meaning OF the acts 10
ferred 30 to be as the Commissioners have
interpreted it
The statement was made in the bill Of
the Potomac Company that the United
States people had expressed the inten-
ton not to ask for any more north bound
contluits il the Ninth street conduit Were
granted them by the Commissioners.
This the United States Companys an
swer denies
II is denied that ample eonduits for the
lighting of the subdivisions in question
Were already constructed prior to the ap-
plication for the Ninth street permit. 1t
is alst denied that the digging up OF tile
streets required for the laying of condui5s
by the United States Company, in pursla nee
of it, 6 ppIication, constitutes public ndis-
ance or that the digging up OF the streets
would permanently injure existing pavs-
| ments.
One other interesting assertion is made
that may cause considerable comment in
court circles.
The United States Company sa US that the
occupation of certain streets and avenues
by the Potomac Company Is prohibited, and
contrary to law; that all contracts ever
entered into betw cen the late board of Conn
missioners and the Potomac Company for
the lighting of any public highway lying
east OF Rock Greek, except in Eckins Ton,
were made without authority OF law and
are illegal and void.
The United States Company filed aus