Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-07-10
PROPOSALS REJECTED
The Rate for Electric Arc Lamps in Con-
troversy.
opinion of the Attorney for the Dis
trict ON the Intention
of Congress.

Acting upon the advice of the attorney
for the District, the Commissioners have
rejected the proposals of the Potomac Elec-
trio Power and United States Electric
Lighting companies to furnish all the
necessary labor, materials and appliances
and light with electric arc lamps those
streets and avenues in the District not
lighted with electric arc lamps, under con-
tracts with the companies at s91 % per an
mum. The companies have also been in
formed by the Commissioners that they are
ready to enter into contract with them for
such lighting at the rate allowed by law.
namely, So per lamp per annun.
The District appropriation act of March
3, 1899, provides the sum of $63, 900 for cleo
trio arc Fighting. and further provides that
not more than % cents per night shall be
paid for any electric arc light, and
the electric lighting companies shall be re-
quired at all times to furnish to the public
and to private consumers in all parts of the
District of Columbia standard arc lights of
not less than 1000 actual candle-power at
rate not exceeding $40 per annum for
each arc light; and on and after the LIST day
of June. 1899. the maximum price of cleo
trio current sold or furnished to any con-
sumner in the District of Columbia shall be
Ii
cents per Kilo-watt hour to not exceeding
10 cents per kilo-watt hour. And provided
1urther, any company charging or
collecting an amount in excess of the rates
herein prescribed shall be guilty of nlisde-
meanor. and shall pay to the District of
Columbia the sum of $50 for each and every
offense, TO be collected as other fines are
now collected in the District of Columbia"
Congressional Intention.
After the proposals for electric lighting
during the present fiscal year were recently
opened they were referred to MIR. Walter C.
Allen. the District electrical engineer He
called the attention of the Commissioners
to the fact that the bids of the two COM
panies are for the first rate mentioned in
the appropriation BILL % cents per lamp per
night, or S9l.25 per annum for each lamp.
Believing that the appropriation act evil
dences an intention of Congress to reduce
the price of electric lighting, and that the
lower rate shall apply to the public arc
lights, Mr.. Allen suggested that the ques-
ton be referred by the Commissioners to
the attorney for the District This the
Commissioners did, their attorney advis-
ing them that the electric lighting COM
panes are. by the provisions of the act of
March g. 1899, required by Congress to fur
nish electric arc lights to the public at a
rate not exceeding s72 per annum for each
light.
"The question:" explained the attorney,
lis to be determined by the rules of statu-
tory construction. One of these rules of
construction is that where the statute eX-
presses general intention and also par
ticular intention, incompatible with the
general intention, the particular intention
is to be considered in the nature of an eX-
ctptfon. Or, as it is otherwise stated,
where there are two sets of provisions, one
giving specific and precise directions to do
particular things, and the other, in general
terms, prohibiting certain acts which
would, in the general sense of the words
used, include the particular acts it author
ized, then the general clause does not con-
troll the specific enactmentS: The reason of
the rule being that the legislature must be
presumed to have intended that which it
expressly stated, rather than what might
be inferred by the use of general terms.
But il, as hereinafter suggested the two
provisions relate to the same kind of ser
vice, there is an irreconcilable conflict be-
tween the two provisions, and this rule can
have no application. The consideration
which. in my judgment, controls the proper
construction is. therefore, largely a ques-
ton of fact.
Limits the Rate.
CAS- I read the above-m mentioned proviso,
that not more than 25 cents per night
shall be paid for any electric arc light
etc, it merely limits the maximum rate
the Commissioners may pay for such arc
lights. 1t is not direction to them to pay
that rate but inhibits payment in excess
of it, which is entirely compatible with the
payment of a rate not exceeding So per
annum for each arc light fixed in the sub
sequent provision. This subsequent pro-
vision, establishing rate not exceeding s72
per annum for each arc light, is addressed to
the electric lighting companies as a specific
condition for their right to use the existing
cCnduits, and is a mandatory requirement on
them to furnish to the public standard arc
lights, while the final penalty clause makes
1t a misdemeanor for any company to
charge or collect amount in excess of
the rates prescribed
The phraseology relative to electric arc
lights found in the first proviso of the pres
ent appropriation bill Is substantially iden-
teal with similar provision in the District
appropriation bill for several years past.
II am informed that all the public arc
lights always have been, and are, 'all-night
lights that standard arc lights are lights
of not less than 1000 actual candle-power,
ard that the public electric lights burning
all night are these same standard arc lights
OF not less than 1000 actual candle-power.
If so, then the reference to the two electric
arc lights in the clause under consideration
Is a reference to the same identical lights,
and, In my opinion, the electric lighting
companies are required by Congress to fur
nish them to the public alta rate not eX-
ceeding So per annum for each arc light.
II, however, there Is, in point of fact,
well-defined difference between the two
electric arc lights mentioned in the clause
in the appropriation bill, which Congress
may Dt toLSlUtTtu 10 nave n3Q IN nina,
then the bids of the two electric lighting
companies may be considered and accepted
by the Commissioners
The Commissioners state that it is a fact
that there is only one kind of electric arc
hght in use by the District government
which is the one which burns all night
They have, therefore, approved the opinion
of their attorney, and have so informed
the companies, stating that they are ready
TO enter into contracts with them for cleo
trlc arc lighting at the rate allowed by law
81 per lamp per annum.
Legal Proceedings
The action of the District Commission
ers in rejecting the offer of the Potomac
Electric Power Company To furnish electric
are lights to the city for the sum of
s9l.2o per lamp per annum and informing
the company that they would accept a bid
to furnish light at ST. per lamp per an
mum will probably result in a friendly suit
being instituted for the purpose of testing,
the question in court. The law states that
the first named price may be charged. and
there's also a clause which says that not
more than the last named sum may be
charged. The matter will be submitted to
the attorney of the company, and then, as
stated il IL