The times., 1897-05-12
ELECTRIC LIGHT CLAIMS
Argument of Counsel For the Con-
tending Corporations.
Respective Rights of the S'otOniac
and United States Companies Pfe-
scented to the Commissioners.

The Commissioners yesterday afternoon
heard the arguments of the counsel repre-
seuting the United States Electric Lighting
Company and the Potomac Electric Power
Company, regarding their respective rights
under the present law in force in the
District, governing the making of ',onnec-
tions with buildings from their conduits.
ttorney James K Reddington APP
peared for the United States Company, and
began his argument by short history OF
the law governing electric lighting com
pafies. prior to the passage OF the act OF
1896. he went on to trace the history
of the Potomac Company, and related
that prior to the passage of the saidact, Tie
Potomac Company had practically no legal
status an electric lighting corporation
In the city of Washington. IL had by as
suining the assets OF some Small conf
panies acquired {; right in Geor getown, but
was not permitted TO extend its coDduits
or overhead wires east of Rock Greek.
1t. however, claimed the right of way in
all sections OF the county outside of the
limits or what is known as Old Nashing-
ton, and its claims were resisted. not
only hy the United States Company, but By
many citizens
When the right or way vas gwen the
Potomac Company to extend It's conduitS
into the city OF Washington it was found
that in order to make the necessary ofn-
nections the Potomac COMPANY was com
PEELED to excavate clear across New York
avenue while the United states was
oily compelled to excavate about twenty
five feet The contention was ih.rei"re
held by Mr. Reddngton that In the in
terpretation of the law as il now eN-
lists the conduits OF his company were
more adjacent TO the houses titan the
conduits or the Potomac Company.
He coatended that the law meant taat
by its prior right to occupancy Congress,
in the inten ton OF the law, considered
that on all conduits of the Potomac
Company not running parallel To the con-
duits or the United States Company il
would he permissible TO make conncc-
tions with the houses adjacent to the
conduits, but where the conduits OF the
two companies ran parallel in the same
street the connections could only te
made from the ooDduits nearest IN the
houses, and Mr.. Reddiugton claimed that
his company was alone entitled TO make
such connections, as intended by Con-
gress in the act Of March 3, 1897. Both
conduits could not be considered ada
cent for the reason that one was more
adjacent than the other.
Mr. Reddin gtoa said that his company de
MED that there had been any bona fide
application by the owner of the Evans
building but that IL is covert attempt ON
the part of the Potomac Company to make
connections with the building on e street,
between Fourteenth and Fifteenth streets.
1t was charged by Mr. Reddington that the
companys intention was not to furnish
the Evans building with lighting facilities.
but for the purpose OF establishing relay
or distributing station for the distribution
of power and light within q given radius
If this is allowed, he said, that there was
no reason why similar relay stations might
not be established wherever the Potomac
Company deemed necessary.
If that be a bona fide application of the
owner of the Evans building to make the
necessary connections, he can have the
same from the conduits of the United States
Company at the same price.
Mr. j. Dar,in gton sal thatit had always
been his practice TO pay no attention to
anonymous charges or anonymous letters,
and Col Thomas said that if Mr.. Crosby, of
the Potomac Company, would deny under
oath that no collusion had been intended
in the application alegedto have been made
he would furnish the necessary proof to sus
tain the charge that the application was
not bona fide.
Mr. Crosby said that if the Commissioners
desired any information regarding the good
faith of the application, he would be pleased
to submit it,
Mr.. Darlington contended that the def
milton of the word adjacent as outlined
by Mr Reddngton was not the sense In
tended to be taken by Congress. and that
had it been the intention of Congress to
specify such an Interpretation it would
have added the words land nearest to-"
and had that been the intention OF Con-
gress it would have applied to about
half mile of streets within the city of
Washington.
The argument was upon the application
made week go by the Potomac Company
to make a connection betweenits con.1uts
on New York avenue and the Evans build
Ing. 1927 New York avenue. Among those
present at the hearing were Judge Jere
Wilson. of counsel for the United States
Company; President Crosby, of the Po-
tornac Company, and President Thomas,
Of the United States Company Attorney
S. T. Thomas was present as adviser TO
the board.