Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-09-01
MUST REFUSE PERMIT
Opinion Respecting Request Of G.
and P. Telephone Company.
COMMISSIONERS WITHOUT AUTHORITY
Discussion Of Law Upon Which
Application Was Based.
THE POINTS CONSIDERED

The attorney for the District today ad-
vised the Commissioners that, in his opin-
! ion. they are without authority to permit
the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone
Company to string wires from a point on
New York avenue between 18th and 18th
streets on Western Union Telegraph Com
| pany poles to 18th street, thence south on
That street to street, thence east on C
street to 18th, thence south 18th to B
street, for the purpose of furnishing house
| connections
Inc telephone companys application for
the permit was based upon the following
| clause in the District appropriation act ap-
proved March 3, 1897:
And the authority granted to the said
commissioners in the District of Columbia
appropriation act, approved August 7, 1894,
10 authorize the erection and use of tele-
phone poles in the alleys of the city of
washington shall be limited as follows:
Hereafter no wire shall be strung on any
alley pole at a height of less than fifty
ieet from the ground at the point of at
tachment to said pole; temporary permits
| may be granted by said Commissioners to
strihS wires from cable poles or from exist
ing overhead trunk lines, to poles in, or to
De erected in, alleys. and from alley poles
IN one square to alley poles, or housetop
INJURIES, IN another square for the purpose
OF making necessary house connexions
| from all cable poles and existing overhead
trunk lines within the District of Columbia ;
sucn mouse connection to be made from the
caoie poles or overhead trunk lines nearest
the subscriber"
The authority granted the Commission
ers IN the appropriation act approved Au-
gust {, 1874, was as follows:
AND the Commissioners of the said Dis
trlct are hereby empowered to authorize
the erection and of tplpnhope in
the public alleys of the city of Washing
The Attorneys Views.
1T Is apparent says the Commission
ers legal adviser in his opinion. that
Congress was legislating upon the specific
subject of strnging telephone wires to and
from poles in the alleys of the city. 1t
was not providing general system for
such telephone poles and wires in and over
the streets and avenues of the city of
Washlngton: 1t was expressly limiting the
previous authorization for the erection and
use of telephone poles in alleys
Congressional legislation is necessary in
order to authorize the Commissioners to
grant any permit to string telephone wires
over the streets of the city of Washing
ton. The question is. What is the extent
of the authority conferred by this act of
Congress? Did it extend beyond granting
permits to string wires from cable poles
or from the existing overhead trunk lines
to the poes in or to be erected in alleys,
and from alley poles in one square to alley
poles or house-top fixtures in another
square? -
'If it did, the authority so to do is very
obscurely phrased, for the remainder of the
clause is expressive of the purpose and
intent for which the wires may be strung;
that is to say, to make necessary house
connections from these enumerated places
and requiring such house connections to
be made from the cable poles overhead
trunk lines nearest the subscriber
IF. under this act of Congress, the pres
ent application can be granted, it seems to
me that the telephone company may in
definitely extend its wires over the streets
and avenues of the city in all directions at
its pleasure. Certainly such intention
will be imputed to Congress: on the con-
trary, In this act it deals with the subject
with evident purpose to circumscribe the
privilege conferred on the telephone COM
pany.
Matter of Grave Doubt.
'To say the least. it is a matter of grave
doubt whether Congress by this act in
tended to allow telephone wires to be
strung except from cable poles or from
existing overhead trunk lines to poles in
or to be erected In alleys, and from alley
poles in one square to alley poles or house
top fixtures in another square. and, this
being so, there is familiar and well-set-
tied rule of statutory construction in such
cases. which requires every reasonable
doubt to be resolved adversely to the cor
poratfon. Nothing is to be taken as con-
coded but what is given in unmistakable
terms. or by an implication equally clear
(Fertilizing Company Hyde Park, 81 U.
S. $3.50.
Only that which Ia granted in clear and
explicit terms passes by a grant of fran
chiseS or privileges in which the govern
ment or the public have an interest Where
a statute operates a grant of public
property to an individual or the relnuuish-
Tnent Of a public interest, and the re is a
doubt as to the meaning of it's terms and
as to its general purpose, that construction
should be adopted which will support the
claim of the government rather than that
of the individual (Slidell W. Grandjean,
III. L. s., 43S.)
Method Of Authority
The doctrine Is firmly established that
only that which is granted in clear and ex-
plicit terms passes by a grant of property,
franchises or privileges in which the gov
eminent or the public have an interest I
am of the opinion that the Commissioners
are without authority to grant the desired
permit
1t is understood that this opinion of their
attorney will be approved by the Commits
sloners, and that the course suggested by
him in this case and others similar to it