Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-12-11
Rival Electric Companies Arrayed
Against Each Other.
THE EQUITY COURT Is The FIELD
The Potomac's Complaint An
swered by the United States.
AN INTEREST STING TRIAL

| A hearing was held today in Equity Court
| No. .. before Judge Hagner in the case of
the Potomac Electric Power Company
against the United States Electric Lighting
Company and the District Commissioners
| The case was instituted by the Potomac
| Electric Power Company with the filing Of
| petition for an injunction against the
United States Electric Lighting COMPANY
to prevent the latter company from exc
cutting any work under permits granted by
the District Commissioners; also to prevent
| the Commissioners from granting any fur
Their permits to the defendant company to
| extend conduits
| When the Pc, ition was filed in court if
| was stated. the United States Electric
| Lighting Company was engaged in con-
| slructlng conduit on 9th street. and de-
! sired permit to lay a conduit on 14th
| street. The Commissioners, so it was said
were about to issue the desired permit In
us petition the Potomac. Electric Power
| company maintained that the Commission
| ers lacked power and authority to grant
| such permits.
| AT the hearing today the Potomac Flee
| trio Power Company was represented by
| Attorneys A. s. Worthington and ]. J. Oar
| hnston. Attorneys James K. Redington
| and Jere Wilson looked after the interests
| OF the United States Electric Lighting Com
| pany, while Attorneys s. T. Thomas and A.
| Il. Duvall were present in behalf of the Dis
| trct Commissioners
The Defendant Company's Answer.
| After the reading of the petition of the
| complainant company by Attorney Worth
| irgton the answer of the United States
Electric Lighting Company was submitted
| by Attorney Redington. 1t declared, among
| other things, that the occupation of GER
| tain streets and avenues by the Potomac
company is prohibited by, contrary to and
| against law; that all contracts ever enter
| ell into between the late board of Commits
| sioners and the Potomac company for the
| lighting of any public highway lying east
| OF Rock creek, except in lexington, were
| made without authority of law, and are
| illegal and void.
| The United States company admits, in its
answer, that it was engaged in the con-
| struction of q conduit along 9th street al
! the time the petition of the Potomac ccm-
| pany was fle1, but it explains that the
| work was authorized by The Commission
! ers, ard th&t the CONDUIT was being built
! all Tor the purpose Of extending pre-
| NlCusly existing conduit. situated in 9TH
street south .: * street, i'll ara alon.. GER
| tain streets anG avenues to the suburban
| division known Columbia Heights and
as part CT one and the same system of
! conduits TO connect the sane with "A pre-
| viCusly existing conduit approaching Co
| lumba Heights from the south in 18th
| street.
| Further Denials Made.
Continuing its answer the United States
| Company denied that since June H. 1885,
| it has extended its underground conduts
and wires east of Rock creek and within
| the fire limits. TO Mount Pleasant Wasn-
| ireton Heights and Columbia Heights 1t
admits that, under authority, it has ex.
| tended certain of its conduits so as to
| reach CT approach. severally, certain tech
nical subdivisions. 1t is denied that the
| COmDauy lied
| permit to construct conduit from it's
| central power static at 14th and b streets
| to New York avenue.
| 1t did apply for 4 permit SO it is stated
to extend an already existing conduit sit
! uated in 14th street. In the permit last
referred to, so it is explained,
| braced an application for a permit to con-
struct = conduit from 18th and s streets
! to 14th street and Florida avenue. adding
! that this second application was intend ID
! solely to enable the United States Company
| to complete the two previously existing
| cordults in 18th street, so as to make a
| through connection with Mount Pleasant
| and Columbia Heights.
| The United States company in its an
| sWer, also deries that it ever admitted
| that it is not seeking the extensions COM
| planned of by the Potomac company for
| the purpose of lighting the subdivisions re-
| ferred to- Although south Of K street and
| west of 9th street the United States COM
| rany has several conduits upon different
| streets, running north and south it saws
! those conduits are in all cases entirely mt
ted with cables now in use for lighting
| that section of the city, so as to leave no
additional ducts for use in the suburban
| divisions, provided the conduits are ex-
tended.
1t is denied that ample oonduits for the
| lighting of the subdivisions in question
| We're already constructed prior to the ap-
plcation for the 9th street permit. 1t is
also denied that the digging up of the
streets required for the laying of conduits
by the United States Company in pur-
it,,ta
| lie nuisance or that the digging up of the
| streets would permanently injure existing
paVementS.
| Concluding Claims.
| In concluding its answer the United
| States company sets forth the claim that
| under the facts set forth by it, and particu
| larry under the acts of June H. 1896 and
| March 3, 1897, it is entitled to extend its
| underground conduits and wires east of
Rock creek and within the fire limits. in
| Guiding its conduits in 18th street and 9th
! street, to and into Washington Heights
| Mount Pleasant and Columbia Heights:
| that the permits complained of for such
extensions were proper and legal, and that
| all that has been done hereunder or is
| proposed to be done by the United States
company is within the authority of law,
| Inc United States company asked that
| the restraining order be discharged
Commissioners Claim Authority.
| [AlttT IL NUMBER OF afldaVitS, subscribed
| by prominent electrical engineers and tend
ing TO support the position of the United
States company, had been read, Attorney
| Thomas submitted to the court the answer
of the Commissioners. In it they express
| the belief that they were fully authorized
! to issue to the United States company the
| pc rmit in question. There are practically
| no statements in the answer of the Com
| miSSionerS that not covered in the
| answer of the United States company.
| Counsel for the Potomac company asked
| that the hearing be adjourned till next
| Tuesday in order that additional atfidavits
| might be secured and presented. This
| move was vigorously opposed, however, by
Attorney Redington, who charged that it
! was merely pretext on the part of the
| Potomac company to continue longer the
| temporary restraining order that is pend
! ing against the United States Company.
! After the point had been argued at length,
| the court at l o'clock ordered recess un-
| til o'clock, Judge Hagner stating that in
| the interval he would determine whether
| or not the motion for postponement in
| order that additional affidavts might be
1 G1a1 he tod