Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-04-26
THE TELEPHONE CASE,
Argument in Supreme Court Of
The United States,
1AE SPEECHES OF COUNSEL,
1llrd and Meredith for City and Carter
and Holiday for Company.
The Question of the Conduit Ordi-
nancc-Tbc Difference between the
rHE ALLEGATION OF SPITE WORK

WASHINGTON, D. c.. April 25.-(spe-
Cial)-In the Supreme Court to-day the
counsel for the city Of Richmond and for
the Southern Bell Telephone and Telc-
graph Company argued the case of the
city against the company City-Auorney
Henry r.. Pollard ana Former City-Attor-
ney G. V. Meredith represented the city
and Mr.. Hm Carter and Judge a. j.. Hol-
laday were counsel for the telephone com
pany
Alr. Meredith continued his statement
OF the history Of the Southern Bell Tele-
phone ana Telegraph Company in Rich
inond from the purchase Of the Ormes
contract, in 1855 TO the time of the an
uulmcnt Of the franchise of the company
by the Council of the city
Hc disclaimed any connection between
the letter Of the city Engineers demand
ing free phones and the action OF the
city i'm repeating the franchise of the
company.
With regard TO the conduit ordinance.
3ir Meredith said that applied 10 all COM
panies alike; that no discrimination was
made against any company.
ACT or 1856.
Nr Meredith held that the act of Con-
rress of 1856, giving telegraph companies
tao right to construct, maintain. and
operate their lines over the public do
main and over and along military or post
1oils 0f the United States, should be con-
sII.d in the ordinary meaning and ac-
cr.atlon OF the terms used. The oppo-
aunu claims that telegraph" means
't.Ihonc." There has never been any
p.auon of the word telegraph" as
a.ng telephone" lie showed that
''. aph' means "to write from a dis
tn..' and said no one would understand
ta words telephone" and telegraph"
' being SYNONYMOUS. nor could they be |
Used ntcrchangeably.
The object Of the act is manifest on the |
face of .L lt was 10 bring together by |
ease of communication widely-separated |
localities. and it was not intended 10 APP |
Ir io mere means of local communica- |
tuu
Tie law also gives the privilege Of |
using stones and lumber on public lands; |
10 mean for local exchanges? The |
laW says the companies may pre-empt |
public lands; but there is also a provision |
i-at stations must be ten miles apart |
DOCS that seem as if it were meant 10
gp.y to such local affairs as telephone |
changes?
-le law allowing these privileges only |
..IltI 10 certain companies. and had no |
barring on concerns of such limited |
Character as a telephone company.
MONOPOLY OF THE STREETS.
Tho practical question is the effect of
allowing the Unrestricted use of the |
Streets said Mr.. Meredith. who then
quoted AN opinion Of the Courts as TO the
cts.r of monopolizing the streets.
u.e great difference between a tele-
Fpl and n telephone company passing
through city, IT was pointed out, con-
ss's ODD This: That a telegraph company
iIsctly through city. with. per-
Aai. iew stations, if a large city, while
" telephone company ramfes a whole
'a. j goes upon any street where it
CD et lfhcient subscribers.
"r Meredith said all acccptances are |
sNlI being OF the date of the offer. !
'inmcut offered i'm 1866 to give |
-Hart privileges. IL was in lSSS
li.i i.a southern Bell Company accepted
... ll this case had not arisen. Mr.. |
'l- tl0. That company would have, |
m'''I. oolir resisted any effort of the
'.i'aa 'I-aHa.al 10 fix its rates, on
me ground jlst stated
"I. Mtie0th said that the law was |
. "..Or l' apply TO railroads, nor to
".f .."cf lastrumcntality of commerce. |
.''iL Tor tao reason that II was not |
'--Al telegraph companies would OBJ |
'i'.. me h.chways. and because Of the ,
Nlil dincrcnce between this and
'.''i methods Of communication.
RIGHT To DO TELEGRAPH BUSINESS
"r Aoedith's attention was called ,
member Of the court 10 !
... i.'t tHat the company has q right 10 !
o. graph business He replied that :
''. Dad The right. but had never eX- /
it. that it had made contract ,
"..l bound IT'S hands. Messages sent
'' '. telephone lines are received at
- -fIph office by a person who, IL y
| -. lcd. is an agent OF the telephone =
"iHr ana not Of the telegraph com }
.I. Ihe relation Of the telephone COM
t.| The telegraph company was de- :
'ti f1 be precisely the same as that !
" orlv 20 a railroad and not that OF !
pare N the system. The fact that the | ]
.'frfnhic message is sent by telephone
Goes not make i, part Of the line Of in /
'sfate communication any more than
Would porter or ofiice-bOy who might | {
~ilr thc message 20 the telegraph Office. {
Ae..m mcnt between the two companies S
Nf u4rsmissiOn OF messages, Mr. Mere \
h claimed. would not affect the case. e
Ht intention was that the agency OF
ven mission Of commerce lost its inter
s'e character after reaching state Of
SIR. CARTER FOR APPELLEE.
By Carter reviewed the history Of the
r" from his standpoint In response 10
".uons from the court. Mr. Carter ]
lined that under the act OF Congress ii
oty had no right 10 restrict the use o.
s streets by "a telephone company. 9
ave io prevent the obstruction OF travel. L
act Of Congress. ne said. gave the
snt io run wires "along and over" mill q
and post roads. and not "under' :,
'tem b
3D. Carter said also in response 10 a V
suon from Mr. Justice McKenna. that | I,
q, me city had the right TO repeal the
Mise. IL had the right to put the re-
=, -'4ons oa the company embodied in | :,
w ofdinaA. .s IL
l' Cptor said the attorney for the ~
,F claimed that the telephone company -
~ under contract with the city, and "
A., 'Ioie could not come under the bene-
- W me ~ of de- i