The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-02-02
is Minutes
Sufficient
to make most de-
liCi0us tea biscuit
with Royal Baking
Powder.

defined: that the ordinances OF said city
OF the 18th of December, 1894 and OF the
lOth September, 1898. so far as they I'M
dertake 10 prevent your orator from
maintaining and using It's lines, poles and
wires over and along the streets ana
alleys OF the city OF Richmond, from re-
pairing renewing and extending its said
poles, wires. lines and routes as It's bus-
mess may require. may be declared null
THE Demurrer.
Upon the filing Of the bill an interlocu~
tory Injunction was granted.
The bin was first met by demurrer. The
demurrer set VI these defences:
I. As TO the equity Of the bill.
z. That the act Of Congress or lhb5, APP
plies only to telegraph companies and
not 10 companies Ike the complainant.
3. That the act Of Congress even IL IL
does apply TO complainant does not give
IL any right 20 erect It's poles ana wires
along the streets of Richmond, without
the consent OF the city, subject TO rea-
sOnablc regulations as TO the routes, p0-
sifion and number Of the poles and 10
pay for use OF the street
T. That If this Is the Greet OF the act
Of Congress 70 is unconstitutional
9. That the ordinance Of 1854 constr
tutes binding contract between com
plainant and the city Of Richmond. WIN
n mower Of Tcscission by repeal IN inc
city Council That this power was given
boy the statute Of the state OF virginia
and was properly exercised
The demurrer was overruled and the de-
PENDANT filed it's answer.
The portions Of this answer when pear
upon the conclusions reached in thls
case are these: A denial that the wires
poles and lines OF the complainant IN ana
over the streets and alleys or said Guy
Of the United States. a denial that
complainant is "A telegraph company ana
q denial that its acceptance OF the act
Of 1866. so far as the telephone excha3nss
in Richmond Is concerned even ellt', I,'
IL 10 any Of the rights and powers au-
thorized by the act. A denial that the
acceptance by the complaint OF the pro-
visions of the act OF 1850. mas rendered
complainant independent OF ana superior
TO the Council Of the city Of Richmond
The cause came to a full hearing ana
the Circuit Court made the following de-
cree:
"'lhe court. without passing on the
rights claimed by the complainant com
pany under the laws OF Virginia, and the
ordinances of the city Of Richmond is OF
opinion and doth adiudge order and de-
cree that the complainant company has,
in accordance with the terms and provis-
ions and under the protection OF the
act of Congress Of the United states,
approved July "A, 1866. (Which is an au-
thority paramount, and superior 10 any
States law or city ordinance In conflict
herewith the rights to construct, main
tain and operate its lines over and along
mOndmOnd, both those now occupied by
the complaint company. and those not
now so occupied and 60 put up. renew.
replace and repair Its lines, poles and
wires over and along said streets ana NJ
icys, as well as TO maintain, construct
and operate the same and to connect its
lines with new subscribers along said
STREETS and alleys, and the said city OF
Richmond, its agents, officers and all
others are enJOined and restrained from
cutting removing. or In any way injur-
ing said lines poles and wires OF the
complainant company, ana from pre-
venting or interfering with the exercise
Of the aforesaid rights by the complain
ant company and also from taking pro-
ceedings TO inflict and enforce fines and
penalties on said company FOR exercis-
ing its said rights"
ASSIGNMENT or ERROR
The defendant obtained leave to appeal
from this decree and il comes up on the
assignments of error These are eleven
in number. The first three are general
In their character, going TO the prelimi-
nary Injunction and to the demurrer 10
the bill
The fourth is 90 the effect that the or
dinance of 1884, passed under the au-
thority Of the State OF Virginia, and
under which the operations of the COM
plainant company were begun and con-
tlnued created "A contract which bound
the complainant TO cease its operations
upon the streets and alleys Of Richmond
right to repeal said ordinance a right
reserved I'm the ordinance itself
The NTH and sixth deny that the com
plainant has any right TO the privileges
under the act Of Congress of 1866 which
applies TO telegraph companies. and not
TO telephone company as complainant
is.
The seventh. eighth and ninth deny
that even II complainant comes within
the act Of 1866. il can be protected. unless
it is engaged i'm interstate commerce bus
mess. and only as to such business, and
denies that IL is protected in its local
business. They also deny that there
is anything I'm the contract with the
Western Union Telegraph Company
which puts complainant in Interstate
commerce business, or within the protec-
ton of Section s. Article !, of the Con-
sttution OF the United States.
The tenth and eleventh assignments as
sign error as 10 the scope of the inJunc-
ton, as il enjoins the city from interfer-
ing with the mira State and local bus
mess of the complainant and a right
to erect its poles and stretch its wires.
without any control on the part of the
city.
At the bar the appellant declared that
the constitutionality of the act Of Con-
gress of 1866. was recognized and ad-
mitted.
That all streets which are letter car
rier routes are post roads Of the Unit
ed States.
Il
company can obtain a right OF way for
its poles and wires through a city and
along It's streets, against the wish of the
municipality.
The decisive questions raised in this
case are:
First. Does the complainant come with
in the protection. and is II entitled TO the
privileges contained in the act of Con-
gress Of 1866?
second If II comes within the provs-
tone If that act how far has II limited
and restricted itself by accepting the
provisions OF the ordinance Of the city of
Richmond
Third. TO what extent does the pro-
lection OF the act of 1866 go? Does II
make the company accepting II free OF
the control OF the municipality IN which
IL does business?
The act of Congress of 1866 in terms.
speaks Of telegraph companies. Do these
words include telephone companies?
The telegraph and telephone both COM
municate messages by means OF electri-
CITY over wires, for longer or shorter
distances The telegraph communicates
these messages by sound Of instruments.
the telephone by the human voice usual
ly. Both depend upon electricity Tor
their action. Each is but a form OF
usa-the product and result of the same
nrinciple. The names are only used to
distinguish the method of communica-
SOME CITATIONS.
In England. in the case OF Attorney
General VS.. Edison Telephone Company.
@. b. Div, pa. Stephens j.. in
carefully prepared and elaborate discus
sion. saws: II do not think II necessary
TO express any opinion on controversy
which is more scientific than legal and
perhaps more properly metaphysical or
relative 20 the meaning OF words than
scientific. as IL seems to turn upon the
nature OF identity In relation to sound