Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-06-11

| States, and when an effort is made. or
| threatened. 20 deal with il as tresp1ss-
er. IL can re.er tc that act
| The Circuit Court of Appeals also he'd
that the privileges so grented were 10 be
/ enjoyed in suho,diI stior TO public and
/ private rights and Glht tho municipa 10y
could establ IL lawful provision Ie8uidt
ing the use Of the highways mentionrd
! ia me act o. 'uugrcss. This being So
! that cou.t the injunction granted
bv the On -odrt IL too broad IN its
! language ar. Hcct. There should have
been the recognition OF Il proper exercise
OF the police power by the municieal 60, o.
pordton. ana Tie use oy the compl aih-
ant of It's I0les a1d lines Should nave
beer declared 30 be subject to sucr resn-
latiOns anc restrictions a. may rOE or
may be he!eaite" imposed by the Guy
Council OF PichmCuG, In me piop". and
lawful exercise ct The police power V
L. s APP. Csc. 90 o's
The decree OF the Circuit Court was
reversed, and the cause was renamed
To that court with instructions 10 modify
the terms Of the Injunction therein
granted 50 as 90 conform to the prin-
ciples declared I'm the opinion OF the CIR
cult Court of appeals. Judge Bfd"ley
concurred in the result, but was not IN
clnod % assent TO 50 much OF the opinion
as held that telephone company, sucI'
as was described i'm this cast, ana whose
business Was local I'm character. was
within the purVicW Of the act OF Congress
OF July II. 1856. relating TO Telegraph
companies.
BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT.
The case is now before this court upon
The plaintif's bill. as We have seen,
proceeded upon the broad ground that
il is entitled. in virtue or ne act OF COne
Iress OF 1896. TO occupy me streets Vi
Richmond with it's lines without the con
sent indeed against the VIII, OF the
municipal authorities of that cry Ihai'
il would seem. is the ground upon when
the decree OF the Circuit Court rests ~
IL was declared by that court thdI the
plaintiff had the right. under the pro-
visions and protection OF That act, 10 CuH-
struct, maintain. and operate IL INES
over and along the streets ana dheyS W
Richmond both those tnen occupieu ny
the plaintiff company and those not thth
SO occupied, and 10 put up renew. replace,
and repair It's lines, poles. ana wires oN'.
and along such streets ana alleS :, d. an 80 W.
maintain, construct and operate the
same. as well as 10 connect It's INES WIN
the new subscribers along the streets
and alleys of the city. ,no
The Circuit Court Of Appeals, NHle
holding that the plaintiff was entltled 10
avail Itself of the provisions OF the act
Of 1864 question TO be presently COu
sidered-adjudged that the rights anu
privileges granted By that act were TO oe
enjoyed in subordinaton TO pubic use anu
private rights. and subject TO any !aWlul
exercise Of the police power beiohslus "
the State or 10 one OF us inunleiPa'i, ,tf.
court had adiudged 20 be The scope anu
effect of the act of 1896.
In Western Union Telegraph Company
vs. Massachusetts. 125 L. s, 5sO-oio, II
vas held that the act of 1866 was per
misslve" statute, and that 1t never cou
have been intendea By the Congress ~
tine United States, in comforting upon
corporation OF one State the aNthorlIy -
enter the territory OF any otner S'atS
ana erect It's poles and lines therein 10
establish the proposition that sucn a COM
panV owed no obedience TO the laws OF
the State into which it thus entered anu
was under no obligation TO pay us lalr
proportion OF the taxes necessary 10 us
support"
A ST. LOUIS CASE.
In St. Louis VS.. Western Union Tele-
graph Company. us L. 5. S2-lOO, WHlch
involved the question whether q cor o ISee
ton proceeding under the act u Iooo
could OCCUPY the pubic streets or CITY
without making such compensation, as
was reasonably required. IL was sdIu W
be a niscOnceptiOn 10 suppose ma w w
franchise or privilege granted py tue az
OF 1916 carried with il the unresFIcteV
right TO appropriate the public property
of a State. IL is like any other IianchlSS,
10 be exercised in subordinatlOn 10 pupnc
as to private rights. While a grant from
one government may supersede ana
abridge franchises and rights held at the
Will of its grantOr. IL cannot aDroge any
property rights OF a public character Gre
ateG by the authority OF another soVe-
reignty. No one would suppose tnat
franchise from the Federal Government
TO a corporation. State or national 70
construct interstate roads or lines OF
travel. TRANSPORTATION. or cOmmunlca-
ton. would authorize IL 10 enter upon
the private property Of an indiNidua-' anu
appropriate II without compensation 80
matter how broad and comprehensive
might be the terms in which the fran-
chise was granted. il would be confessed
ly subordinate TO the right OF the indlA
without Just compensation And the prin-
ciple Is the same when under the grant
OF franchise from the National Govern
ment. a corporation assumes TO enter
upon property OF a pubic nature belong
ing 10 a State. Ii would not be claimed,
for instance. that under a franchise from
Congress 10 construct and operate an In
te-state railroad, the grantee thereof
could enter upon the State-house grounds