Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-02-02
THE BELLS VICTORY.
CIRCUIT COURT or APPEALS sus-
TAINs THE GoFF INJUNCTION.
SLIGHT NOTIFICATION is ORDERED.
Right OF the City to Exercise Police
Power Within Limited bounds Is
Recognized-An Appeal to He
Taken-Other Cases.

Court for the Eastern District OF Virginia,
In the case OF the city OF Richmond
against the Southern Bell Telephone and
cations. and has ordered that the costs
of the case shall be divided equally be-
tween the parties TO the suit.
This opinion, written by Judge Simon
ton, was handed down yesterday when
the appellate court convened here at noon
for the February term.
The case was argued November 18th in
Richmond before Circuit-Judge Simonton
and District-Judges Brawley and Purnell
by Mr.. Charles V. Meredith for the city
and Messrs. Hill Carter and A. l.. Hol-
laday for the Telephone Company.
THE CITY WILL APPEAL
Mr.. Meredith said last night that the
decision was not at all satisfactory TO the
city. He added that the modification Of
the original injunction amounted to very
little, and he expressed his determination
10 take the case to the United States Su-
preme Court on a writ of certiorari, the
preparation of which he will begin at
once.
Councilmen who attended committee
meetings in the City Hall last night dis
cussed the matter at great length, and
while some regarded the result as amount
ing to nothing short of government by in
Junction, others were disposed TO take
a milder view Of the case, and in some
quarters the opinion was confidently ex-
pressed that the appeal to the Supreme
Court would not alter the present status.
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
The history of the case, which
| has been followed with close interest, Is
too familiar to need repetition. Brieiiy'
it may be stated that the company was
granted a charter by the city to DO busi-
ness here in 1884. Certain restrictions
were imposed. which the company ac-
| cepted without reservations ON Decem-
| her 1894 the ordinance of 1884 was re-
| pealed by the Council, and on September
| 10, 1895. another ordinance was passed as
| TO the Joint use of poles erected IN the
| streets of the city
Threats were made to carry these ordl-
nances into effect. and the Telephone
| company filed it's bill in the United states
| Court praying an injunction, resting Ns
| right to use the streets of the city under
| the act Of Congress of 1866, and denying
that II could be controlled or prevented,
or was i'm any way dependent upon any
| ordinance or ordinances of the city Coun-
Gil. -,
The bill was met by a demurrer, which
was overruled, and the cause came 10
full hearing in the Circuit Court Delore
Judge Goff, who granted the lnJunc.loh'
The CITY obtained leave to appeal from
| this decree and IL came up in the Court
| of Appeals on eleven assignments OF error
THE QUESTION INVOLVED.
The opinion of the appellate court
of the case. Is as
Tbe decisive questions raised In TINS
I Does the complainant come within the
protection, and is it entitled 70 lhe Div
/ leges contained in the act OF OonsieS' u
| 1856? r,,.,s;ors of
| that act how far has il limited ana re-
| stricted itself by accepting the prOvlSiol,,33
of the ordinance of the city Oh .ntinr of
2 TO what extent does the protcllon oA
| the act of 1866 20? Does IL make the coiiis
| pany accepting it free of the coIlroi ,l VI
| The municipality in which IL dOes ouSi
| ness?
TEEEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE:
The act of Congress Of 1866, in terms,
| speaks of telegraph companies. 20 '"e'o
| words include telephone companies o,,,-
The telegraph and telephone Dolh ~ C~oli-
| municate messages by means OF eiectii-
| CITY over wires, for longer or shoTler us us
t1nceG. The Telegraph
messages by sound of Instruments, tno
| telephone by the human voice usually'
Roth depend upon electricity Ior tnSii
| action. Each is but a form or usemehe
| product and result OF the same PIilSi
nle The names are only used 10 ulSlih
] p1,ish the method of communication.
In England in the case OF Attorney
| General VS.. Edison Telephone Company
@. l. .Divg pa, stephens, d. IN a .siis cat e
fully-prepared and elaborate dlscussion'
81 nj nQrlGCHlN
nress any opinion on a controversy which
| is more scientific than legal, and perhaps
more properly metaphysical or relative
/ 10 the meaning of words than scleh'lnc,
! as il seems to turn upon the nature VI
| identify I'm relation to sound. III IS enough
| 10 saw that. whatever be the merits OF
| the controversy IL does not appear TO US
| that the fact if ii Is a fact, that souhu
| itself is transmitted by the telephone. es-
tablishes any material DISTINCTION between
telephone and telegraDhic communlca-
ton. as the transmission, If II taxes
place, IS performed by wire acted oh
| by electricity" ..
| Iii the Wisconsin Telephone. company
| VS. CITY of Oshkosh. 62 Wis, 81. this case
| was cited with full approval, and the doc-
| trine asserted that. In contemplation ol
| law, a telephone and telegraph company
! are one and the same. In the case OF tne
| Chesapeake and Potomac Telegraph Com
pany VS. Baltimore and Ohio Telegraph
| Company 66 Maryland, 40 the court OF
| last resort of that State quote with APP
proval the English case above quoted,
| and say farther: ut is clear III we iake
the term telegraph to mean and include
| any apparatus or adjustment OF lnstru-
ments for transmitting messages or other
| communications by means of electric cur
rents and signals. that term Is compre-
| hensive enough to embrace the tele-
| phone ,.,.. 49,, f,,,,,
| exnressed i'm Duke VS.. Central New Jer-
| sew Telephone Company, 53 n. j. Law
| Renorts. 3n. The court quotes the IAN
guage of Bell in his application Tor
| 1atent. set out in the Telephone cases
| ioe ~ & l. He says: What / claim is
| the method or an apparatus ior trans
| hitting vocal or other sounds teiegraPhl-
| cally as herein described, by causing eiec-
| trical unduiations similar IN iorin 10 .ne III.
Vibrations of air accompanying SAID vocal
| sounds ,, Mr. Ius.
| ,oa Drown. i'm Cumberland Telephone anu
| TeIepraph Company VS.. United riectli. '
! loilTav Company, AZ Fed. Rep, ZI5, say ;
1--WE see no reason TO doupt the pos,.i,D' ,','
s,hona company Is a telegraph company:
pThn comnlainant. therefore, come with
- Nc nrntection, and is entitled TO the
rr,vileees of the act or lS6b.
now FAR RESTRICTED.
The next question is. If the complain
| ant is within the protection ana enJoys
| the privileges OF the act OF CongIe5s VI
| stricted itself by accepting the provisions
| of the ordinance of the city OF Ricnmohu
| In lime 1884. the ordinance was passed
| granting the right OF way throughou' VI.
| citv of Richmond to this complainant. AZ
| mat time IL had not accepted the pro
| s,isions Of the act OF 1866. and In no othei
ryav could IL get the right TO enter tnt
city but by permission OF the city Councii