Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-02-02


Congress. II would be a trespasser on
these post-roads. Under the act or COT
gress II has the right to construct. main-
tain. and operate lines OF telegraph over
United States. and when an effort Is
made or threatened. 10 deal with II as
trespasser, IL can refer TO that act.
HOW FAR PROTECTION GOES.
The next question Is. To what extent
does the protection of the act OF congress
20? Does IL free the company accepting
fits provisions from any control OF the
municipality through whose streets ~
may 90? This act OF 1866 authorizes the
company accepting its provisions TO main.
tain and operate IT'S lines on any pose
road The act itself prescribeS conui-
ton The lines OF telegraph must not IN
terfere with the ordinary travel; IL is'
therefore. subordinate to the pubic use.
The privileges Of this act. like any otner
frachise. are TO be exercised In suDoIu.- .,.
nation TO public as to private rights: 'o,'
Louis VS.. Western Union Telegraph CON-
pany 14S T.. S., 1907 These privileges must
be enjoyed, subject TO the lawful eNeI
else OF the police power. In western
Union Telegraph Company VS.. Massaenu- ,,1
setts, 125 L. S., $50. telegraph company;
protected by the act OF 1866, and engaged ggi
| in business a common carrier, Nas
| held TO be a subject OF taxauon ~
| state. The Supreme Court uses TINS ian-
| Riage: "It never could have been intend
| ed by the Congress of the United States.
| in comforting upon corporation oI one
| State the authority TO enter the lerritoIy
! OF any other State and erect poles anu
lines therein. 10 establish the pr9pon,o,, pps,encs
| that such a company owed no Obedience
| to the laws OF the State into wnicn 10
| thus entered"
In the case Of St Louis VS.. western
Union Telegraph Company, supra, a
| charge by a city for poles was held Vallu
| against this same company. the only iiml-
| tation being that the charge be not un-
| reasonable. In Western Union Telegrapli
| Company VS.. the Mayor. Law hep0I.s
| Ann, 4l9, an ordinance requiring thal
| telegraph wires be placed in conduits was
sustained. Streets and alleys in cily
| are the public property, placed under ,ne
| supervision and control OF tne IIunse s
| palfty, the representative OF the sovereign
| power They exercise this supervision anu
| control for the benefit Of the whole puDic
| those living upon and those passins
| through such streets and alleys. And III
| the exercise Of this supervision, "nicn
| Is the police pewer, they must see 10 IL
| that the rights of the public ana Oh pr
| vate persons are not infringed.
RIGHT TO USE HIGHWAYS.
The complainant. under the act of con-
press has the right TO use these nlgn-
| ways Neither the State nor any munlci.
| pality can prevent II. But this use mus.
| be subordinate TO the rights OF the pupiie,
| must not endanger those rights. Ana as
the municipality is the guardian OF inc
public in this regard. II can establish sucn
| lawful provisions as may regulate the USE
| always, however. avoiding sucn iesuIa-
tions as will make the use ouroensolne
and intolerabe and so practically lmpos-
sible. (City of Philadelphia VS. WeStelh
Union Telegraph Company 81 Fed hep'
1919 .o
This being so. the injunction grantee
| by the Circuit Court is too broad III ie9
! language and effect. There should nave
been the recognition of proper exercise
of the police power by the munlclpai COZ
poration. and the use by the conplalnane
| of its poles and lines should have peeh
declared to be subject to sucn regular
| tions and restrictions as may no" VI
NAV be hereafter imposed by the CITY
| Council of Richmond, in the proper anu
| lawful exercise of the police power. 49,
The only remaining question Is, 90 lhe
ordinances of the city OF Richmond pre-
scribe regulations which viii make the
use burdensome and intolerable' ana
practically impossible? o,or
"It belongs to the Legislature 70 eAeh h
else the police power of the state, sup
| feet TO the power of the courts 70 au,
| Judge whether any particular law Is an
| invasion of rights secured by the CohsIi-
tntion," CMugier VS. Kansas, 13 U. s.,
e2S1 sThe Legislature may not, unaer
| the guse of protecting the public IN
! terests. arbitrarily interfere with pIiVa.e
business of or impose unusual an anu oo,,- o,
necessary restrictions upon iaWtui occu-
nations. In other words. It's deter NINA q :
.ioT ne 20 what is a proper exercise OF
its police power is not final or conclpsiNe y.
but is subject to the supervision 1i tne
| courts" G4awton vs.. steele, loz y. o,
! t971 If this be the case with regard 10
tbe legislature. fOrtiori. 1t apples 10 a
| fnunicipal corporation, the creature OF lne
/ legislature. r,,.<>r,ror
! WHAT THE ORDINANCES. REQUIRE
ON examination of these ordinances II
| viii he seen that as a condition preceuent
| ~ tho use Of the streets of Richmond,
| natition must first be filed Tor the PuI
hose Of erecting and maintaining pores
| and wires for telephone purposes III a. a.
| cordance with the conditions OF tnat oIui-
| vonca and such other conditions as the
| Council may see III TO impose tOrdlnance
| annroved 10th September. 1901 the 0ii
| section of this ordinance expressly ie
serves to the City Council the right ~
put at any time other Ies.a,esro,nd .d,'o, and er-
| feet of the ordinance Is TO put tne Soino
| many absolutely under the control OF lne
| CITY. And the terms OF the ornihahce a. a. .
enforcible under heavy penaautSS;. pena.itS;no, Tor
next ordinance. the one providing 10.
wires in conduits. after provlding Una Una : !,
| rhe CITY Council may compel the renoEal ~
of wires from poles overhead III cel.,,i c...l
| streets and the putting them IN coiiuu ~, -
| in certain streets. under penalty OF NJ NJ
10 thon SlO0 or more than 500 for each
1 mole ner week, provision is made TOT pei. p.
| rro5seinn IN build conduits OF suinclehe
| capacftv to accommodate the wires III
| snrh streets and to provide Tor an III
crease thereof TO at least the ,aea sA.en' NOT or
100 per cent. the increase OF space no. no.
| TO be occupied by the party buiidlhg n.'
| conduifs without the consent OF the Oouu-
| iii the conduit to be used for the wires
| of the Council free, and the CITY CouiiS.'
to allow any other person OF corpoi JUN
TO use such conduit Tor wires uPon P,is,'So ~
| ing compensation in the mode prescrlpeo
| nv the city Council. This prlVl-
| ieqe of building and owning con con-
| duits to last no longer ihah IL
| teen wears at the end OF Whicn tinie tne
city may put such other reslIictlol9 o a, q,
| litions and charges as II may see III, VI
| ,narr order their removal at the expense
| Of the owner The charge Tor uslIls u,
] owning any wire in any such oonu" @
| shall be for each year until Janudiy - !.
1900 81 per wire per nlIle. sat,on for the
r,eet of the term as the city Councli may
| 500 fit These are some or the cohul,loi,, I.'l,s
now imposed. with the right 10 l,npoo' oa'
! any others which the Ccuhcli I'aS a
IN Now II goes without saying tIld' -
~ comnlainant notwithstanding IL
| eintr, ~ nrotection under the act OF 1on
| .nss of 1s66 were willing TO nle petllioi
* tbe Citv Council for the privilege o.
usine it's streets and alleys, anu III 'ua "a,
petition agreed IN coharas ,srasent or futur,
| 5ondition regulation. or restrlction t"'
| Council may impose, TINS "ouru JUN roi IN,
| hinding contract and would cohtIoi w w
| nrnriainant Railroad Company W
COMP 9omp'"irTIff i5s T. s. iS6. Whatever the right
of the complainant may have oeen unde
Sucb a stipulation. II wouid surisnuJi 'i
them and come within the aps0iute uolrai
nation of the City Councii. me ooui d,s
could not review any ordinance 10 as uis
os.nr e g. a he within the lawful exercis
80 Tho nolice power. for the compiinnail
1uonid he bound by its contract 10 ODE