Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-10-26
CONFIRMS ITS RIGHT
Attorney Thomas Opinion Favorable
to q. S. Lighting Company.
EXTENSION OF The CONDUITS
Revival of Acute Issue Between
Rival Corporations.
VIEW OF TON

An important opinion, which may have
the effect of reopenir.g the war between the
rival electric lighting companies. was rem
dered by the attorney for the District this
morning.
This opinion was called forth by the ap-
plication of the United States Electric
Lighting Company for a permit to con-
struct an Underground conduit from 9th and
K streets to Columbia Heights, out 9th
street. Attorney Thomas decides the
United States company has the right to
select its routes. and that the Commits
sioners cannot refuse the permit
Congress at its last session gave the
United States company authority to ex-
tend its conduits to Mount Pleasant, Wash
ington Heights and Columbia Heights, and
nothing was thought of the proposition
until it was discovered that the proposed
route paralleled the conduits of the Poto-
mac Electric Power Company out 9th
street. 1t then became apparent that the
United States company was continuing it's
fight against it's rival, by laying plans to
build conduit along the route already oc-
cupled by the Potomac company. with a
view, probably. of undertaking it at the
next letting of street lighting.
Attorneys Protested.
The attorneys of the Potomac company
the filing of the application came a protest
with the request that before any action
should be taken the Potomac company he
permitted to file brief
Then it the Commissioners sent the
application TO the attorney for the Dis
tflct, with instructions to advise them
what powers, If amy, they had in the prem
ises to grant the application.
AS soon as this reference was made. the
attorneys of both companies began to file
briefs with the attorney, and for over a
month, it is declared. there was nothing
but briefs to occupy his attention. Several
tunes he started III to unrayel the prob
lem, Only to be stepped by the appearance
CT another brief
At length both sides rested They ad-
united they were through and We're will
ing TO rest the case, and after careful
consideration of the matter for several
weeks the attorney for the District admit
ted the force of the United States Com
p&iys contention, and decided as stated
ahove. the right of that company to ex-
tend Its conduts to the subdivisions men
TONED in the last appropriation bill, with
It's right to select the routes for reach
ing the same.
Attorney Thomas Opinion.
The opinion in full is as follows:
Il have carefully considered the applca-
ton of the United States Electric Light
ing Company for a permit to construct an
GiiI.ei iOuiiu COiUult from 9TH and X
streets northwest to Columbia Heights.
which you referred to me for opinion
The electric lighting clause in the Dis
trict appropriation bill. approved June II.
1896. contains, among other things the
following:
And the United States Electric Light
ing Company may extend its underground
conuultS and wires east of Rock creek and
within said fire limits to Mount Pleasant
ana Washington and Columbia Hefg hts,
under such regulations as the Commits
sloners of the District of Columbia may
prescribe
8, 1877, in regard to electric Lighting occurs
the following:
Until Congress shall provide for a
conduit system it shall be unlawful to lay
coEduits or erect overhead wires for eIe..-
trlc lighting purposes in any read street
avenue, highway, park. or reservation, ex-
cept as hereafter specifically authorized.
And nothing herein contained shall
pc construed to prevent the United
States Electric Lighting Company from ex-
tending conduits into Columbia Heights
Washington Heights and Mount Pleasant
Until Congress Shall Provide.
Until Congress shall provide for cor
duit system it shall be unlawful to lay
conduits or erect overhead wires for cleo
trio lighting purposes in any road street,
avenue, highway, park or reservation ex-
cept as hereafter specifically authorized.
be construed to prevent the United
States Electric Lighting Company from ex-
tending conduits into Columbia Heights.
" ash.ngton Heights and Mount Pleasant,
etc.
In the electric lighting clause in the
deficiency bill, approved June t. 1897 the
provision in the act of March B. 1897 that
the United States Electric Lighting Com
pany shall not be prevented from extend
ing its conduits and wires to Columbia
Heights, Washington Heights and Mount
Pleasant, is repeated.
In the consideration of this case counsel
for both of the electric lighting companies
have submitted briefs. The interest of the
Potomac Electric Power Company in the
matter is that 1t has a conduit on the west
side OF 9th street between K and Boundary
is allowed, will be paralleled by the con-
Quits and wires of the United States Eiec-
trio Lighting Company.
Power Over u Location Only,
IN the brief of counsel for the United
States Electric Lighting Company it is
contended that the Commissioners have
nothing to do with the matter, except to
regulate the location of the conduits in
the street or pavement, the depth of the
conduit beneath the surface, or subway to
be laid. and the location of manholes On
the other hand, counsel for the Potomac
Electric Power Company argue that the
exercise of the right of the United States
Liectric Lighting company 10 extend It's
oonduits and wires is subject to the dis
erection and control of the Commissioners.
He insists that the proposed extension is
unnecessary, and that the discretion of the
Commissioners should be exercised against
1t because If allowed it would parallel the
conduits of the Potomac Electric Power
Company.
The question involved in this applica-
ton Is one not without difficulty. 1t is
whether, in view of the words in the act
OF 1896, under such regulations as the
Commissioners :" may prescribe the
Commissioners may designate the streets
in which the United States Electric Light
ing Company may extend It's conduits and
wires. whether they, and not the Electric
Lighting Company, may determine what
conduits and wires it may extend, or
whether those words were intended to refer
to matters of detail, such. for example, as
the location. depth of the conduits repair
of pavoments, and other such matters
The act of 1896 does not in terms confer