The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-02-26

Wis. 3. u y. w Eep e-oi Cumberland
Telephone and telegraph Company rs.
United Electric Railway Company. -
Fed. 27s: Duke rs. Central New Jersey
Telephone Company. 53. New Jersey Law
Rep. 81: Chesapeake and Potomac Tele-
graph Company VS.. Baltimore and Ohio
Tel Co. &C Nd. 40
ENTITLED TO PROTECTION
TN this case this contention Is conf
denuy made by counsel for complainant.
and vigorously denied by the attorney
FOR The city Of Richmond. I DO not find
70 necessary 10 decide it for the reason
that IN my Judgment the statements set
ont I'm the bill and admitted by the de-
murror TO be true show that the COM
pla'nant is both O. telephone and a tele-
graph company and clearly entitled. n
the proper action relating thereto has
been taken. 10 claim the benefits and the
protection given by said act of Congress
10 is distinctly charged. not only that
the complainant IS telephone comapny.
engaged IN such business in n number Of
states of the Union but also that is
telegraph company. chartered as such
under tho general laws OF the state OF
New York That being So. then the pro-
visions of the act OF Congress mentioned
are applicable. and whatever action may
Doe found proper hereafter when an the
so f7r g the demurrer ie concerned. that
this insistance OF the defendant IS with
out merit
a POINT FOR THE BELL.
"Tho defendant also claimed I'm is
written demurrer fled In this cause. that
lf sa.d act Of OF congress was intended
TO give TO a telegraph company the right
10 erect poles and run wires along the
streets OF tho city of Richmond without
the consent OF said city, that such LeCis-
laiipm was uucCv itutiOnal and void.
This position was abandoned ln the argti-
ment and n was conceded that such
act was constitutional that an streets OF
the city OF Richmond which arc letter car
rier routes. are post roads within the
meaning of said act and that under ths
same telegraph company can obtain a
right OF way FOR lte poles and wires
through and along the streets OF n city
without the consent or n municipality.
These admissions are based on the de-
cisions Of tho Supreme Court of the United
States Pensacola Telegraph Company
VS.. Western Union Telegraph Company
@ United States. /. Telegraph Company
We. Texas. Jos United States, $50; Western
Union Telegraph Company vs. Massa-
chusctte 10 United states $50. ST. Louis
vs. Western Union Telegraph Company
1iS. United States o. and 49, United
States ff5.
"G think it is plain that the complainant
under the allegations r tho BIN contained
is n corporation entitled to exercise all
the functions granted 20 telegraph COM
panics under the laws OF the State Of
New York. and that under tho act OF
Congress referred 90 70 has the privilege
Of running its lines through and over tina
streets of the city of Richmond. that ara
postroads Of tho United States and THAI
said city has no right to prevent IL from
90 doing.
ON TILE OTHER HAND.
while # is true that telegraph COM
panies claiming the right under the laws
of the United States 10 enter the terri
tory Of q State and erect its poles and
lines therein, must pay their due pro-
portion OF taxes ami Jbmit tp the ordi-
nary reasonable regulations OF the State
and municipal authorities whose high
ways they use and whose protection they
claim and receive. still it i5 also true that
neither the state nor the municipal au-
thoriics can prohibit them from entering
their respective Jurisdictions. nor require
them tO remove tlerelrOm after they have
established their lines.
"Such cOmD1nies must submit 10 proper
and reasonable local regulations. but they
win not he expected 10 acquesce iu a
city ordinance. nof intended 90 regulate
i.s MANAGEMENT hut passed for the pur-
pose OF dcstroy.ng its existence.
OF think tho h.l alleges such facts. as
shown. the complainant TO De engaged
in Interstate commerce. and ] find that
the claim OF defendant that tho business
" complainant company is purely local
in character is NOT sustained. The case
made Iv fI. ufnlIIurs i- as have iu-
dictated. what iAe result may Dee "heh
the evidence ,7 l.i' I'D "e i'D'io.
me n'I .hlaht '.' ',.l I'D
'il' '.-l''.. ' '''
OCT '''. l-i'. '-
..' u.
.i .,.'' .o,..-,,,, u. 80 .. ,., ~, t...,..-'.7
w., o1 ,t.e "a g.. s.f .5.,. c,..s
'.' .to., .f..r.... ro,.r.. 10 ,., ,o,..,
.-.. s.,.'.,i ,,.... .i-.I i, ..fI .,.,. lr-
Ji,onro
~ro what extent tho conrfairant fs
hound d.. tho tarr. o. t.o orlfnanco of
Juno aG fSsl 10 is not necessary 20 dee
termine. but that 't is protected hy the
act OF Congress r.''rred io-nF NH'ue OF
us accepli.ee Oh '.. IONS "-' o"
lois ol ,"
WIN ,.s.
l'-.eu '.',e r,r .,'.. ,...,.,'.'.. 80
...',,.... i''' Co.. ,@r and iirl, f,o,.. l..i,...
i...'i ,.r Co.. ,.r,,..,.t,. -o...l B.. =
tffrlr rrIar fha circumstances 4.t forth
...f f.lt .o. ,i.., thaf f,aro .f. rot room,
CO. ro,ft
.e.t.... 80 ,-.-.,.., ,,.,, f,t,..r.l 90
..,.,..,. ,...,,....,.. o., .,t,
'Il' -t .. .... ......1 .- ,...ii
..-.,. l.. ......,..,..l ,t..,
.... ......,..,.. .l-......t