Evening star., 1898-01-06
PETITION GRANTED
United States Electric Company En-
Joined From Laying Conduits.
THE OPINION OF JUDGE HAGNER
Exhaustive Analysis Of the Various
Phases of the Case.
POTOMAC COMPANY'S RIGHTS

L IL ~
Judge Hagner today in Equity Court No.
ruled on the petition of the Potomac
Electric Power Company that the Commits
sioner:; b. enjoined in granting any permits
IN the applications of the United States
Electric Lighting Company, to lay conduits
On 14:h street, and that the United States
company be cnjoined from proceeding fur
ther to construct electric conduits on 9th
street northwest and on Grant street Flo
ida avenue and 18th street from placing
any wires or cables in any part of such
'ondults already constructed: and from
constructing any conduit on 14th street
und.r the pending application, and that
the commissioners be enjOincd until spe-
'inCaiiy authorized by Congress- from
granting any permit to tine United States
company Tor the construction of additional
condults and from permitting the United
states company to proceed further with
us Nork OF construction on 9Th street. The
TtIitIoh was granted by the court, and the
CmteI states company cannot proceed
with Its work on the streets indicated nm
VI proper authority is secured from Com
SreSs.
The Order Of the Judge
IN concluding his very exhaustive opin-
ioii' III "ihch all the details of the case are
discussed at length Judge Hasner says:
heihg oil the opinion that the Commits
sioners We're not legally authorized 20 issue
the permit to the United States Electric
Lighting Company on the 18th of Nover
ter. 1897, to make the extension of it's CON
QUITS on ?th street. l shall pass an order
oFeErdIlng the molten to dissolve the in
JuhILloh. whIch will be continued until
further hearing. For the same reason /
Will sign an order enjoining the Commits
siohers from issuing d permit for the cx-
tension of the conduits from 14th and Is
Streets
Claims Denied
The first point considered by Judge Has
rer was the contention OF the United States
Electric Lighting Company that its corpo-
ration has the exclusive legal right to
maintain underground conduits and wires
in any portion of the city of WASHINGTON
east of Rock creek. and that whatever ap-
parent authority has been conferred upOn
the Potomac Electric Power Company bv
permit from the Commissioners to main
tain conduts and wires within tha: terri
tory, including those on 9Th street. was
given in dsrogation of such exclusive legal
rights of the United States company and
In direct violation of law and that such
Conduits and wires are maintained by the
Potomac company without legal right or
authority. If this position be correct. said
Judge Hagner, the Potomac company can
have no right to maintain any suit based
on what would have been a mere usurpa-
tlon upon the legal rights of the United
States company.
This same claim was urged by the United
States Company in its suit against the
commissioners. in which il sought to re-
strain the issue of any permits authorizing
the Potomac Company to lay conduits on
either side of Rock creek and to prevent
the Commissioners from entering into con-
tracts with the Potomac Company for fur
NlStllg electric light
avenues. or in any parks or reservations
Judge Hagner said further The pretention
was overruled by Judge Cole November 80
1896. I'm my opinion added Judge Hay
ner. whatever additional facts have been
developed since November 1896 greatly
strengthen the position assumed by Judge
Cole therefore overrule the contention"
Right to Maintain a Suit.
The next contention of the United States
Company considered by Judge Hagner was
to the effect that, conceding the Potomac
Company has a legal capacity to maintain
proper suit respecting the subject matter
involved, yet it has shown no right to
maintain the action for an injunction: that
the construction of the conduit along 9th
street having been authorized by the Com
missioners. who had the legal right to issue
the permit, the execution of the work in a
proper manner cannot constitute a public
nuisance, and further, that the Potomac
Company has shown no such special injury
likely To result TO itself as entities il to ap-
ply for an injunction to restrain the prose-
Cution of the work in any event
Ii being admitted that the Potomac COM
pany is the owner of more than $50 900
worth of real estate in the District and is
Il taxpayer To a considerable amount. and
that there is no pretense that ii is acting
collusively with other parties and not for
the protection of its own interests. Judge
Hagner held that it may in its quality as
taxpayer. and as the pOssessor of an i'm
lisrf
street. maintain suit to injOin the break
ing up of pavement on that street. if the
work Is being done without proper legal
authority. especially as there does not eX-
ist in this jurisdiction an official CORES
ponding TO the attorney general in state
to restrain acts in excess of proper legal
authority
Precedcnts Quoted.
An unauthorized invasion of the public
streets constitutes public nuisance ac-
cording to Judge Hagner. which may be
enjoined at suit of a taxpayer without
proof of other special injury than the
pecuniary loss and discomfort necessarily
involved in the disturbance of the surface
of the streets. which probably can never
be satisfactorily replaced In two cases at
least. the United States company. claim
ing TO be a taxpayer i'll the District, have
filed bills to restrain the commissioners
from granting permits to the Potomac COM
pany to construct conduits or to enter into
Hagner, and in both cases their right to
maintain such action has been sustained.
No reason can be assigned why the Po-
tomac Company should not have the same
right. Indeed. the fact that the Potomac
Company is Incorporated under the laws
OF the United States. in the District of Co
lCmbia. while the defendant company has
preferred TO obtain corporate franchises
from the state of West Virginia, free from
the safeguards established by our local
Statutes for the public protection. may
perhaps make the right of the Potomac
Company clearer, according 10 Judge
HaSner.
The Most Important Question.
This brings us to the consideration of
the most important question in the case"
next said Judge Hagner. 1T is whether
the excavation complained of and the con-
strUction of the conduits therein We're au-
thorized by lawful authority? If it was SO
authorized. then its careful construction
cannot be held TO DE a public nuisance as
IL would undoubtedly be if the reverse were
the case.
There can BE- no doubt the Commission
ers, after consideration. and upon the ad-
vice of their counsel. and in sincere belief
of their right to do so, issued a permit on
the 10Th of November, 1897, broad enough
In terms to justify whatever has been done