The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-05-23
certain conditions imposed by the ordi-
RIGHT TO REPEAL

nances.
RIGHT TO REPEAL.
The Council reserved the right TO re-
peal the franchise ordinance at pleasure,
such repeal TO become effective twelve
months after the repeal resolution should
become Il law. Various disagreements
arising. the Council. after efforts extend
ing over three years. 10 secure It's rights
on December "A. 1894, approved resolu-
ton repeating the franchise ordinances.
Instead OF recognizing as binding upon
It the repeal ordinance. the Bel Com
pany, on october g, 1896 secured an
injunction in the United states circuit
Court for the Eastern district of Virginia,
which practically gave the company
free hand. when the case came 10 trial
il was decided that the act of July "a 1866,
applied 10 the Southern Bell Telephone
and Telegraph Company 1t having been
decided that letter-carrier routes are post
roads. and the court holding that "tele-
phone" meant telegraph as well.
THE ACT OF 1866.
The act Of Congress referred TO is con-
tanned i'm United States Revised Statutes,
section 1858. and is here quoted In full
As section 525S is n part Of the same act
and throws light upon one OF the queS-
lions involved In this case, 10 is also
quoted
Section 1858. amy telegraph company
now organized, or which may hereafter
be organized. under the laws of any state
shall have the right 20 construct MAIN
tain, and operate lines of telegraph
through and over any portion of the pub
lie domain Of the United States over and
along any of the military or post roads
Of the United States, which have been or
may hereafter be declared such by law
and over. under. or across the navgable
streams or waters Of the United states,
but such lines Of telegraph shall he so
constructed and maintained as not to ODD
struct the NAVIGATION of such streams and
waters. or interfere with the ordinary
travel on such military or post roads
Section 52sS. Before any telegraph COM
pany shall exercise any Of the powers OF
privileges conferred by law such company
shall file their written acceptance with
the Postmaster-General OF the restrictions
and obligations required by law
THE POLICE POWER.
on an appeal the Circuit Court Of APP
! peals FOR the Fourth Circuit sustained the
lower court with the modification that
there should have been a recognition or
a proper exercise Of the police power by
the city. The case was then taken TO the
United States Supreme Court
Alleged interstate commerce features Of
the telephone company's business ard al
legged irregularities Of procedure in the
courts We're not touched on by the SUI
preme Court in the opinion handed down
to-day.
In the opinion the rights Of telegraph
companies under the act Of 1866 were not
defined. but citations were made pointing
20 an opinion that the law I'm question did
not give telegraph companies urbrldled
license to run rough sh0d over the rights
and privileges OF towns. cities and States
ERROR or THE COURTS.
The Supreme Court held that without
regard 10 the authority granted to tele-
graph companies by the act of 1866 the
lower courts erred I'm deciding that
Telephone" company could claim pro-
lection under It's provisions. While adj
hitting that the Bell Company was char
, tered as a telephone and telegraph COM
many the court holds that the only bust
ness I'm which IL was engaged was that
/ Of a telephone company. None OF the
cases cited IN the argument Of counsel
| for the Bell Company, IL was held. IN
volved n construction Of the act OF 1856.
The possibilities OF what Congress might
| have done II telephones had been known
| In 1896. when tho act was passed ana
! what public policy might now dictate
were referred TO. but Il was held that tho
| court was not called on 90 decide what
! Congress might have done or should do
T, now. but what was intended 20 be done
| by the statute In question. Telephony
was unknown then. Bells invention not
| having been made public until 1876. II
was held that the act OF 1866 could only
| be construed 20 apply 70 devices for
| transmitting messages then known
Attention was directed 10 an opinion 81
Attorney General Garland I'm 1851. when
| he decided that the telephone companies
could not accept the provisions Of the
act OF 1866 because such companies were
not within the category Of the grantees
OF the privileges conferred by the statute.
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
Numerous practical difficulties were sug-
gested as 20 questions which would arise
II the judiciary should exceed It's func-
tons by broadening the provisions OF an
act because OF subsequent discoveries.
which could not have been In the nina
OF Congress.
The Court held that no intention 70
confer upon telephone companies special
rights in the streets OF cities and towns
had been manifested by Congress. such