Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-04-26


MED this. contendIng that the act Of Con-
gress was paramount.
MIR Carter endeavored TO show that the
action OF the City Council. I'm passing the
ordinance of repeal. was spte-work. be-
cause OF the refusal 10 give the city free
phones.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.
MIR Carter said the Legislature pro-
vlded for the citys admitting telephone
company TO It's streets but did not au-
thorize 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 IL had a
right TO construct and operate !ts lines
along the streets Of the city. lie did
claim that II there was conflict OF au-
thority the act Of Congress was para
mount He disputed the contention OF the
city that the company was "A trcspasser.
Mr. Carter said n was impossible 10
deal with local business and interstate
business as separate things.
JUDGE HOLLADAY FOR COMPANY.
Judge Holiday said the city OF Rich
mond endeavored TO repeal by ordinance
vested rights OF the telephone company
rights enjoyed by IL under the COnsttu-
tion and the laws of Congress. He
argued at some length 10 show that the
case had been improperly taken.
The court was apparently judging
from questions put 20 counsel-not en-
tirely satisfied with the statement that
all streets are post-roads. nOtwthstand-
ing the statement OF Judge HOlladay
that this was an agreed fact.
He cited an English case TO show that
q baI Baar dacfdeJ that "a foleprauh COM
pany Is a telephone company. Maryland,
Tennessee and New York cases were also
cited TO sustain this contention. lie
said no case had been found I'm which
a contrary opinion had been expressed.
Telegraphy IS part Of the postal sys-
tom. he said. because it was an agent
for the transmission Of intelligence.
REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS.
Judge Holiday said the telephone COM
pany had not denied that Il was sub
icct 10 reasonable restrictions, but
that the question of what constituted rea-
sonable restrictions had not been raised.
This was in response TO questions by the
court.
In regard TO the interstate feature of
the case, Judge Holiday denied that
there was any analogy between tele-
phone company's relations TO "A telegraph
company. and the relations existing be-
tween transportation company and
the means used TO bring goods 10 the
station.
Mr.. POLLARD CLOSES.
Mr.. Pollard said that at his earnest
solicitation Mr. Meredith had taken up
most of the time allotted TO the appel
liant because of his familiarity with the
case. Several points Of the other side,
however, he wished 10 notice.
1t was claimed that the city would not
allow the company 10 do business in
Richmond. He showed that the com
pany had refused TO comply with the
and asked what constituted
reasonable restrictions As 10 threats.
he denied that any one was authorized
TO make threats. and said that anything
OF the kind must have been in formal
resolution. None of the city officials or
had any authority to make
such threats, and they should not be con-
sidered.
In connection with the statement of
counsel for the telephone company that
the LEGISLATURE Of Virginia had not au-
thorized the attachment OF conditions TO
the granting Of franchises. Mr.. Pollard
cited the charter of the city of Rich
mond. and referred TO decisions of the
Supreme Court 10 the effect that gene
raj statutes with regard TO cities were
To be modified by specific provisions Of
law.
VIOLATION OF CONTRACT.
The company admits the violation Of its |
contract with the city, taking refuge be-
lind alleged constitutional rights by rea- /
On of subsequent acceptance Of the act |
If 1866. Mr. Pollard said, further, that |
{ had been decided that constitutional |
lights may be contracted away.
The argument was concluded at 4:l5 |
?. NJ.