Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-02-26

~ Telephone Company VS. City Of Osh-
SoSn' Wis 3. p, n. w. Rep. SOS: Cum
oeriand Telephone and Telegraph Com
pahy VS.. United Electric Railway Com
Pahy' ~, Fed, 2l3; Duke VS.. Central New
1elSSy Ieiephone Company, So. New Jer-
sey Law. Rep, Sn: Chesapeake and Po-
tomac Telegraph Company VS. Baltimore
and Ohio Telegraph Company. &C Nd. 40
IN this case this contention is con-
hdently made by counsel for complainant
ana vigorously denied by the attorney
lot the city OF Richmond. / do not find
IL necessary now 10 decide IT, for the rea-
son that, in my judgment. the statements
set out in the BILL and admitted by the
demurrer 10 be true. show that the COM
piainant Is both a telephone and teie-
graph company, and clearly entitled. il
the proper action relating thereto has
been taken. to claim the benefits and the
protection given by said act Of Congress-
IL is distinctly charged, not only that
the complainant is a telephone company
engaged in such business I'm a number Of
the States Of the Union, but also that Il
is a telegraph company, chartered as
such. under the general laws Of the State
OF New York. That being So then the
provisions Of the act of Congress
mentioned are applicable, and whatever
action may be found proper hereafter
when all the facts are brought before
the court, ] hold that. so far as the de-
murrer is concerned. this insistance Of
the defendant is without merit.
TELEPHONE OR TELEGRAPH.
The defendant also claimed, I'm its writ
ten demurrer filed in this cause, that If
said act of Congress was intended to give
a telegraph company the right TO erect
poles and run wires along the streets OF
the city of Richmond. without the consent
Of said city. that such legislation was
unconstitutional and void This position
was abandoned in the argument. and II
was conceded that such act was consti-
tutional. that all streets Of the city OF
Richmond. which are letter-carrier routes,
are post roads within the meaning Of said
act and that under the same a telegraph
company can obtain a right Of way for
its poles and wires through and along the
streets of a city without the consent or
municipality. These admissions are
based on the decisions Of the Supreme
Court of the United States. Pensacola
Telegraph Company VS.. Western Union
Telegraph Company 96 United States, 1;
telegraph Company VS.. Texas 105 United
States 4G0; Western Union Telegraph
Company VS.. Massachusetts,, 15 United
States. 800: St Louis VS.. Western Union
Telegraph Company, 14S United States s2
and 149 United States 465.
/ think il is plain that the complainant |
under the allegations in the bill contained |
is a corporation entitled 10 exercise all
the functions granted TO telegraph COM
panies under the laws Of the State Of New
York. and that under the act Of Congress |
referred TO it has the privilege Of running
its lines through and over the streets OF
the city Of Richmond that are post roads /
of the United States. and that said city |
has no right to prevent it from so doing
RIGHTS OF TELEGRAPH COMPANIES. !
While il is true that telegraph compa- |
nies claiming the right under the laws OF |
the United States TO enter the territory OF |
a state and erect its poles ana lines there-
i'm. must pay their due proportion OF taxes
and submit to the ordinary and reasonable
Of the State and municipal au- /
tborfties whose highways they use and |
whose protection they claim and receive |
still il is also true that neither the STATE |
nor the municipal authorities can prohlDlt |
them from entering their respective Jurls-
ldictions. nor require them to remove
tnerefrom after they have estaDhshed
their lines. -
Susb companies must submit to proper /
and reasonable local regulations. but they
will not be expected TO acqmesce IN Guy |
ordinance. not intended to regulate us
n,anapeuent. but passed for the purpose /
of destroying its existence.
THE CITY's sTIPULATIONS.
think the bill alleges such facts as |
chow the complainant to be engaged |
in interstate commerce. and l ma Jhat |
tba claim of defendant that the busi-
ness of complainant company IS purely /
local i'm character is not sustained. Inc
case made by the pleadings IS as h&vo /
indicated what the result may be ~heh |
The evidence Is in, is yet to be iound.
oil inc IN
complainant erected its poles ana hheS
under the authority of the ordinance Oh
the cjtv of Richmond. passed June 70 !
1884 that il cannot afterwards, Dy ac-
centinr the provision of the act OF Con
yrees .Tulv "a 1866 "a Statutes 22l, keVlseu /
Statutes section 1853, ct seqJ lheIeDy !
rcnder of no effect the stipulatons CON
tanned i'm said city ordinance 10 WIZ
extent the complainant IS pouhu DS ~ tn9
terms of the ordinance OF June 49, looi,
- &c NOT necessary to determine out !
~ g. is protected by the act of Con- !
gress referred toby virtue OF Hs az
oentance of the restrictions ana ODllga-
tidre Of the same. which was hled WIN
~ stmaster-GeneTal Of the Unlleu
Sto+es February 13, 1SS9-and that II
-, relv upon il for the purpose ol
,,reyenting its poles and lines from pelng
removed. and its property uesrOSeu -,
7 think. under the circumstances
forth in the bill, so clear that theIe -
not room for douD''
WHAT WAS INTENDED.
said act Of Congress was INTENDED 10
annlv to telegraph companies III oNi9 o,, |
ence at the time it was passeu' as W"
~, those that might be organized theie-
~ ~ ,ero,,ided such companies accept |
od the terms Of the same IN hihhiVl u
60 mentioned. If such companies hd1
-, organized under state laws anu
"a been transacting business uhder thS
ro,.isions of municipal ordinances anu
-, s,,beeouentiy accepted the terms
20 s,id act of Congress, II follows tnd.
tho state and city laws IN SO a. "
least as they conficted WIN sucn su r'd nr
tional leeislation, were lhopeIaM1Ne M -
void. and for the reason thul ~ p,o,,,,ress |
'o,,,od matters over which the Congress
had supreme control by Vrlue u
constitutional authority.
MATTERS OF DEMURRER.
Holding as / do on the ques,ons e,,r-
ferred 20. il becomes hhtla'0il"i ~. tbe
-. consider the matters raised py tne
Si,e, ,,',,,,,rrer discussed by the Council lo'
49, rsaeon that. decide them as may,
..',, tbe jurisdiction OF the court 10 near
~ Geterrnine this case must De mann
'',I,, ,rhev can be considered hereafter, -
eSorv lnSy when they have been more
I.,S,. aresented by answer and testimony
W. viii pass decree oyegru5l,net ,u5ast the tbe
=, ,o,,rrer. and giving the oelehu""' INV
,,suaI time in which to answer. -, oo,o-
,t me ,t'T ,9nl be granted, to remain IN
plalh"nt the further order OF this
force UNI" NATHAN GOFF,
court United States Circuit Judge
February "a 1891