The times., 1898-01-07
he BACKS UP POTOMAC co.
Judge Hagner Decides the Electric
Light Cases.
Every Point Eaisedeby the Defendant
Corporation Sustained -Ques-
tions He PASSES Upon.

OuS suit between the rival eicclrlc ISHI
concerns, over the right of the United
states company to extend its under
ground conduits on the numbered
streets into the northern suburbs The
Potomac Electric Light Company is
sustained by the decision in every point
of it's contention against its rival, and
the United States company is enjoined
from continuing its work on the extern
sion of the Ninth street conduit.
This dispute has been raging for sew
eral months now. and up to this time
fortune in the guise of the Commls-
sioners favored the United States com
'pany in every decision. Briefly this
battle has been in this wise, not TO
mention the long original contest begun
/ several years ago when the Potonac
company first appeared for a share in
the electric lighting business Last
summer one day the United States COM
pany made application for permit TO
extend its Ninth street conduit to Co
lumbia Heights, asserting its right un-
der the acts of March IL and June 4,
1897, which state that the company
may extend it's northbound conduits
in order to obtain access to the north
ern suburbs.
Mr.. Thomas. the attorney for the
the right to the permit.
The Potomac company fled an objec-
ton with the Commissioners and there
was hearing, in which both concerns
through learned legal counsel argued
the matter for many hours. The per-
nit was granted and the company be-
gan work. Shortly after the company
asked for still another permit. this time
for part of Fourteenth street The Po-
tomac company then filed its suit in
equity asking for an injunction against
the United States company and the Dis
trict Commissioners.
The suit has been contested as hotly
as the early maneuyers of the fight
The United States company and the
Commissioners filed long answers to
the bill, asserting that they had both
been entirely within the law and the
right
The opinion of Justice Hagner is one
| of the most lengthy ever handed down
| in the equity court. After reviewing
| the history of the case eXhaustively
| The two preliminary questions whether
the Potomac Company has a right TO
| sue are taken up and answered in the
| Affirmative. Justice 9Hagner says that
/, clearly the Potomac;sJompany, being a
taxpayer in the District, is interested
| in preventing Illegal fearing up and OBJ
struction OF the STREETS and has the
| right of suit on thiS ground to enjoin
| such violation of the law.
The point of the United States Com
pany that the Potomac Company itself
has no rights in the District east of
| Rock Greek and is illegally occupying
| every conduit it has CONSTRUCTED is de-
| uied with quotations. from previous de-
| cisions. This being. the case, Judge
1 Hagner holds that the Potomac Com
pany also has the right to sue because
| of its own conduit and business on
| Ninth street, which it claims will be
| injured by the new conduit.
Judge Hagner then takes up the
| main point at issue, If the Congress IN
| tended TO allow the United States
| Company such rights as it now claims.
| He says;
There can be no doubt the Commits
! sionerS. after consideration and uDon
| the advice of their counsel, and in
sincere belief of their right to do SO,
| issued a permit on the 10th of Novem-
] ber, 1897, broad enough in terms 10
/ justify whatever has been done in ac-
| cordance with its proper limitations,
| by the United States Company.
| Whether the Commissioners had the
| legal authority to issue the permit de.
| pends upon the proper construction of
| the acts of March 3, 1897, and June 4
| OF the same year, in connection with
| the previous legislation of Congress on
| the subject of electric lighting in the
| District.
After reviewing here all the numer-
| Gus statutes relating to the introduce
| ton of electric lighting in the District.
| the opinion suggests that the course of
| this legislation discloseS a persistent
! and commendable caution with re-
! Spect to the introduction OF this new
| and powerful agency for lighting pur-
poses Judge Hagner then calls atten-
| tion to the contention of the Commits
| sioners that the law grants to the
| company the privilege of extending its
| conduits and allows the Commissioners
| no option in the matter. except in so
| far as to direct their laying in a proper
/ manner. He states that he is unable
| to concur in this view. He says:
IF the authority claimed was con-
| ferred upon the United States Com
| pany in the unlimited terms suggested
| i, would be the only instance so far as
| / have been able to find in which the
| authority of the Commissioners has
| been so circumscribed in the legislation
| of Congress on the subject of electric
| lighting
| Judge Hagner calls attention to the
| fact that if the Commissioners are
| right the United States Company
| would have the right to extend any
| existing conduit on a north bound
/ street to the northern suburbs, through
| any street and In any direction, which,
| he asserts. clearly never could have
! been intended. He suggests that the
permission granted by Congress to ex-
] tend conduits to the subdivisions in
| question undoubtedly assumes that
| the excavations should be made by the
| shortest reasonable route so that the
injury to the streets and the expense
and discomfort to the public should be
| reduced to minimum.
He concludes: Being of the opinion
| that the commissioners were not le-
gally authorized to issue the permit to
| the United States Electric Lighting
| Company on the 10th day of Novem-
ber, 1897. to make the extension of its
conduits on Ninth street. I shall pass
an order overruling the motion to dis
solve the Injunction, which will be
continued until further hearing. For
| the same reason / will sign an order
enioining the Commissioners from is
suing a permit for the extension of the
| conduits from Fourteenth and B