Evening star., 1897-10-29
LAYING OF CONDUITS
Right of United States Company to
Make Extensions.
HEARING BEFORE COMMISSIONERS
Arguments by Counsel Of the Rival
Corporations.
THE DECISION RESERVED

The right of the United States Electric
lighting Company to extend its conduits
up 9th street. and the Jurisdiction of the
Commissioners in the matter of granting
a permit therefor. was the subject of a
Wearing before the Commissioners this
morning. When the application was made
for a permit for this extension. 1t was un-
derstood that the United States company
WAS seeking to parallel the conduits of
the Potomac Electric Power Company and
1t was believed 1t would follow this by
undertaking its rival for the lighting of
streets when the time came for reletting
the work.
As has been stated the application was
followed by protests from the Potomac
Company. So important did the Commis-
sioners consider the application that they
called upon their attorney for legal opin-
ION Both sides presented several briefs
before the attorney submitted his opinion.
ard it some months before the question
was finally decided by that officer. ne ac-
knOwledging the right of the United states
Company to extend its Conduits to the sub
divisions named In the act of Congress;
acknowledging the Jurisdiction OF the COM
missiorers and pointing out they had 10
other course open to them but to approve
the application. This was all set forth ex-
clusively in The Star at the time.
Public Hearing Asked For.
The opinion of the attorney was followed
by an application from the Potomac COM
pany for permission to be heard before
final action was taken by the authorities.
This was granted. the hearing being set
for this morning after postponement from
last Tuesday.
Both companies were represented In the
board room this morning, when Commits
sioner Ross called the meeting to order.
Trf1e nit
Thomas looked after the interests of the
United States company. while Mr.. j. j.
Darlington represented the Potomac COM
pany. Upon agreement Mr.. Darlington
opened the discussion
He preceded his remarks by motion to
strike from consideration in the case the
correspondence between Mr.. A. T. Britton.
of counsel for the United States company.
and Senator Mcmillan. This correspond
ence proved of vital Importance to the case,
since Senator Mcmillan. who is understood
to have drafted the legislation, supported
the contention of the United States COM
pany. and broadly stated the intention of
Congress, which authorized the extension
of the conduits of the United States COM
pany. Mr.. Britton, in his letter to Senator
Mcmillan. reviewed the contention of the
two companies and asked the senator to
enlighten him upon the intent of Congress
senator McMillan's Letter.
Senator Mcmillan responded as follows:
Replying to your letter of October 10.
/ would say that my understanding of
the legislation in regard to electric light
ing was this: When the latest District
appropriation bill was pending in the Sen
ate the Potomac Electric Company had
conduits in Cor in process of being put in)
a number of streets for public lighting,
and also had certain overhead wires west
Of Rock Creek. The United States COM
pany had certain rights to extend its con-
duits to the northern suburbs, but the
Commissioners had never answered appli-
cations for permits to exercise these rights.
Congress undertook to make available
for public and private lighting the coz
Quits of the Potomac company. subject to
the decision of the courts as to pending
legislation. and to sanction for a certain
length of time the overhead wires of the
Potomac company west of Rock creek;
ard on the other hand Congress undertook
to provide definitely for the enjoyment by
the United States company of its already
granted rights to extend its conluits north
ward to the suburbs specified in the bill
The present question. therefore appears to
me a simple one. When the United States
company asks for a permit to extent any
of its existing north and south oonduits
into of the suburbs enumerated /
think II is asking to exercise rights that
the law of 1896 grants and the law of 1897
confirms.
Objects to Consideration.
Mr.. Darlington contended this cores
pondence should not be considered in decid-
irg the case, since the exparte statement of
one senator was not sufficient to construe
an act of Congress. Conceding the ac-
qraintance OF the Commissioners with the
case. he argued against the application
Calming that If granted. the United States
Company would have the right to extend
Its conduts into and through every street
in the city subject to its conditions. First
that the new eonduits shall begin at an ex-
listing conduit. ard, second, stop at one of
the subdivisions named In the act
he cited the law Ielating to conduits-
the general conduit system-and said: A
permit TO the United States Company
would be in direct violation of the act
quoted.
COmnaissiOners' Right.
Replying to query from Commissioner
Ross, Mr.. Darlington said he thought the
Commissioners should designate the route
TO the subdivisions That the United States
Company had stated frankly 1t did not
want to light the subdivisions, and its ap-
plication for that privilege now on file
amounted to nothing. In other words
while the United States Company had the
power To extend its conduits to the subdi-
Visions Tor the purpose of lighting them IL
the route.
In conclusion. Mr. Darlington said where
statute was capable of two constructions
one in favor of the citizens and the other
opposed to their best interests the con-
struetion In favor of the city should be ac-
cepted Further, il would be better for the
autnorities 10 defer any action upon this
appiication until Congress convened when
tne subject could be taken up and all am
biguity made plain
Judge Wilson Replies.
Judge Jere Wilson followed. He calied
attention first to the protest, which came
from rival company Taking UP the law,
the one of June IL. 1896 he said the matter
was plainly set forth. and that Congress
knew the situation of the subdivisions. of
the rapidly building up sections. which
needed lights. and specifically set forth into
which of those important sections the con-
Quits should be extended.
There could be no doubt of the intent Of
Congress upon this matter. 1t was pointed
out that the act of 1896 which granted
the L. 5. Company permission to extend
Its conduits to certain subdivisions was
reiterated in the act of March 3, 1897, and
the deficiency bill of June, 1897 so that 1t
was absurd to contend that Congress did
not know what 1t was doing