The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-04-26
THE MAIN QUESTION
Is the Construction Of the Act of Con-
gress of 1866.
CASE OPENED BY Mr.. MEREDITH
lie Made an Able Presentment from
the Ctys Standpoint, Showing
That Telephone Companies
Did Not Come Within the
Purvicw of the Act-The
other side.

WASHINGTON, April especial. The
United States Supreme Court to-day
heard the argument of counsel in the
case Of the city Of Richmond against the
Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph
Company, appealed from the United
States Circuit Court Of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit. Counsel Tor the city
were city Attorney Henry r. Pollard and
former City-Attorey @. v Meredith. Mr..
hin Carter and Judge Addison l.. Holla-
day were in charge OF the interest OF the
/ appellee. All the counsel were from
Richmond. Mr.. George H. Fearons, Of
New York city, one OF the attorneys for
the telephone company, did not appear
in tho case
THE MAIN QUESTIONS
The case contains a number OF interest
ing points but the main questions at
issue are whether any telephone company
is embraced within the act of Congress
Of July "A, 1866, giving extraordinary privi-
leges 20 telegraph companies along post
roads; whether a telephone company do
ing a local business only IS wthin the
purview OF the act; whether a telephone
company doing both an interstate and a
or control OF a municipality as 10 its local
business; and whether the city has tho
right 70 impose restrictions and condi-
tons upon telephone companies using
their streets.
Tho Southern Bell Telephone Company
was chartered in 1879. In 1874 the privi-
lege of running wires on the streets Of
Richmond was granted with a provision
in the ordinance that the city might re-
peal il at any time. the repeal 10 become
effective twelve months after the date ot
repeal For reasons satisfactoryato Itself.
the city Council on December Il, 1894,
adopted an ordinance repeating the fran
chise Through legal proceedings the
telephone company had the city restrain
ed from enforcing the ordinance or from
interfering WIN its business. The case
has been through various courts. and is
now before tho supreme judicial body OF
the nation for inai decision.
MR. MEREDITH OPENS.
The case was reached late yesterday
afternoon and Mr.. Meredith opened with
brief partial statement Of the city's con-
tention and the history Of the Southern
Bel Telephone and Telegraph Company
I'm Richmond. from the purchase or the
Ormes contract in 1855 TO the time OF the
annulment OF the franchise OF the COM
He denied any connection between the
letter of the City Engineer demanding
free phones and the action Of the city
I'm repeating the franchise OF the COM
pany.
with regard 20 the conduit ordinance,
Mr.. Meredith said that applied 10 all COM
oanies alike. that no discrimination was
made against any company
Not FOR TELEPHONES.
Mr.. Meredith held that tho act of Con-
eress OF 1866 giving telegraph companies
tho right % construct, maintain and
onerate their Zines over the public do
main and over or along military or post
roads OF the United states should be con-
strued IN the ordinary meaning ana ac-
ceDtation OF the word telegraph
THE opposition claims "tclegraph' means
"teiephone" There has never been any
accoptation Of tho word "telegraph' az
moaning "telephone" lie showed that
telegraph" means "to write from DIS
tanco" and said no one would under
stand the words telephone or "tele-
rranh" as being synonymous. nor could
they be used interchangeably.
The object OF the act Is manifest on
the face OF II. Il was TO bring together
nv ease NJ communication widely seps-
rated localities and not 10 amply TO mere
means OF local communication.
The law also gives the privilege ot !
using minerals and lumber on public !
Lands Does q mean for local exchanges
The Law, saws tho companies may pre-
enlnt public lands. But there IS also
nrovision that the stations must be ten
miles apart. Does that seem as II u were
meant TO apply 10 such local anairs as
i.iophone exchanges? The law allowing
these privileges only applied 10 certain
conpanies and had no boring on CON
Germs Of such a limited character as
telephone company
IT'S EFFECT
The practical question Is the effect or !
allowing the unrestricted use NJ the |
streets. said Mr.. Meredith who then
ouoted an opinion Of the court as 70 the |
danger Of allowing the monoPolization OF
the streets.
One great difference between tele-
qranh and "A telephone company passing /
through the city it was pointed out con- /
sists I'm this: A telegraph company goes |
directly through a city with its lines.
HAVING perh9ns a few stations, n IN a 1
large citv. while n telephone company
n whole city II goes upon any
street where If can get sffucient sub
scr,hers. Mr. Meredith said all accent
ances are construed as being Of the date
of the offer The government offered IN
1896 10 give extraordinary PRIVILEGES. II
was IN 1855 that the Southern Rel ac-
cented the offer. IL this case had not
arisen Mr.. Meredith said that company
would have without doubt resisted anv
effort of the Postmaster-General TO fix
It's rates on the ground Just stated.
ONLY TELEGRAPH LINES.
Mr.. Meredith said that the law was not
made 20 apply 10 railroads nor 10 any
other instrumentality OF commerce. clear
lv for the reason that II was not thought
telegraph companies would obstruct the
highways and for the essential difference
that and other methods Of COM
munica,ion.
Mr. Meredith's attention was called 10
the fact that the company has right 10
10 a telegraph business. lie replied that
4 had had the right but had never ex-
arcised II: that II had made a contract
which bound il not to do so. Messages
sent over the telephone lines are received
AZ the telegraph Office by person whom IT
nas been decided is an agen, OF the tele-
,hon~ company. TIE relation Of tee |
telephone company to the telegraph comb i