The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-04-26


not a part Of the system. The fact that
the telegraphlc message is sent by teio-
phone does not make IL part OF the line
OF Interstate Communication more than
would be the porter or office boy who
might carry the message TO the telegraph
Office. Agreement between the TWO
companies fOr transmission OF messages
Mr.. Meredith claimed would not AFFECT tho
case. Ills contention was that the
agency Of transmission of commerce lost
its interstate character after reaching a
state Of rest.
THE OTHER SIDE.
Mr.. Carter reviewed the history OF the
case from his standpoint. In response
10 questions from the court he claimed
that under the act Of Congress the city
had no right TO restrict the use OF It's
streets by a telephone company. save 10
prevent the obstruction OF travel The
act of Congress, he said. gave the right
TO run wires along and over military
ana post-roads and not under them.
AIr. Carter said also. in response 20 a
question of Mr.. Justice Mckenna. that
if the city had the right 20 repeal the
franchise it had the right to put the re-
strictions on the company embodied Ia
the ordinances.
Mr. Carter said the attorney FOR tho
was under contract with the city. there
fore could not come under benefits of
the act OF Congress Of 1855. He denied
this. c0ntonding the act OF Congress was
paramount Mr. Carter endeavOred 10
show that the action OF the city council
In passing the ordinance OF repeal was
spite work because OF the refusal TO
give the city free phones.
COULD MAKE 40 CONDITIONS.
Mr. Carter said the Legislature pro-
vides for the city admitting or refusing
the admission of telephone company
10 IT'S streets. bur did not authorize the
annexing Of conditions of such entry.
lie denied that the Bell Company had
ever claimed 10 be above proper police
regulations. but claimed that H. had
right 10 construct. maintain and oper-
ate its lines along the streets Of the city
lie did claim that 81 there was conflict
of authority the act ~ Congress was
paramount He disputed the contention
OF the city that the company was a tres
passer.
Nr. Carter said 81 WIS impossible 20
deal with local and interstate busines
as a separate thing.
IMPROPERLY TAKEN.
Judge Holiday said the city or Rich
mond endeavorcd 10 repeal, by ordinance,
vested rights Of the telephone company
rights enjoyed by IL under the Consutu-
tion and laws of Congress. He argued
at some length TO show that the case had
been improperly taken.
The court was pparenty-judgins from
questions put 10 counsel-nOt entirely
satisfied with the statement that all
streets are post-roads. Notwithstanding
the statement Of Judge Holiday that
this was am agreed fact
Judge Holiday cited an English case
10 show that it had been decided that
telegraph company is a telephone com
pany. Maryland, Tennessee, New jersey
and New York cases were also cited TO
sustain this contention. lie said no case
had been found in which contrary opin-
ion had been expressed. Telegraphy is
a part of the postal system, he said, be
cause it was au agent Tor the transmission
of intelligence
Judge Holiday said the telephone
company had not denied that Il was SUBJ
ject to reasonable restrictions. but that
the question of what constituted reason
able restrictions had not been raised.
This was in response 10 questions by
the court.
In regard 20 the interstate feature OF
the case. Judge Holiday denied there
was any analogy between a telephone
company's relations 90 a telegraph COM
pany, and the relations existing between
a transportation company and the means
used to bring goods to the station.
Mr.. Pollard said at his earnest solicit
tation Mr.. Meredith had taken up most
OF the time allowed % the appellant. be-
cause Of his familiarity with the case.
Several points OF the other side, nJw-
ever he wished 10 notice
IL was claimed that the city would not
allow the company TO DO business in
Richmond. He showed that the company
had refused 10 comply with the ordi-
narces and asked what contstuted rea-
sOnable restrictions. As 90 threats, lie
der led that any one was authorized 10
make threats and said anything OF the
Kind must have been I'm a formal reso-
luton. None OF the city officials or COM
mlttees had any authority % make such
threats and they should not be cons.d-
cred.
SOME AUTHORITIES
I'm connection with the statement of
counsel for the telephone company that
the Legislature OF Virginia had not au-
thOrized the attachment OF conditions
10 the granting OF franchises. AIr Pol
lard cited the charter of the city OF
Richmond and referred 10 decisions OF
the supreme Court that general statutes
with regard 10 cities We're 10 be modified
by specific provisions Of law.
The comapny admitted the violation Of
its contract with the city. taking refuge
behind alleged constitutional rights by
reason Of subsequent acceptance or the
act Of 1895. Mr.. Pollard said further that
It. had been decided that constitutional
richts NJ be contracted away.
The argument WAS concluded NJ 41I
p NJ having occupied nearly the en-
tire afternoon.