The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-05-23
Mr.. Justice Harlan Holds That the
Lower Courts Erred.
IS NOT A TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
The Bell Cannot Claim Privileges I'm
der the Act of 1866. Since Telc-
uhoncs Had Not Then Been
Invented The Case Rcman-
ded 10 the Circuit
Court,

The city Of Richmond has won the
hard-fought case against the Southern
Bel Telephone and Telegraph Company,
which. for many months past has been
operating without a franchise from the
city Council by virtue OF decision rem
dered in the United States Circuit Court
and affirmed in the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals, which declared that
the company's lines were n part OF the
telegraph system and therefore, under
act OF Congress OF 1896. We're at liberty
to use the streets Of cities as post-roads
Of the United States.
The case was taken TO the United states
Supreme Court on a writ Of certiorari
and was ably argued by Nj Charles v
Meredith who had been specially retained
By the city. and by Mr.. H. Il. Pollard,
city Attorney.
THE QUESTION DECIDED.
The question was decided IN Washing
ton yesterday nfr Justice Harlan de-
livering the opinion OF the court which
held that thc the company has
no right under the act of Congress OF
1866 giving telephone companies extra
ordinary privileges along the post routes
OF the United states.
The case was remandcd 10 the Circuit
Court with directions 10 ascertain what
rights the company has under the laws
OF Virginia and the ordinances of the
city OF Richmond.
The court held that both the lower
courts erred in holding the terms "Tele-
graph" and Telephone" TO be inter-
changeable.
THE COURTS FUNCTIONS.
II might have been IL the telephone had
been known at the time the act was
passed that Congress would have included
70 I'm the act. but the courts function was
not TO decide what might have been done.
nor what ought to be done. but what was
done by Congress
Bells invention was unknown until 1870.
In 1866 Congress only knew OF what is
popularity known as the telegraph. For
the court 20 include the telephone IN the
scope OF the act I'm question would open
up many complications.
The court was unwilling 20 rest its de-
cision upon an implied definition especially
in a case having so important bearing
on public rights. u Congress desired
such legislation &c could enact it.
HAS 40 RIGHTS.
The above decision IS regarded by those
who are in a position 10 know as
Knockout blow 10 the Southern Tele-
phone and Telegraph Company. as II IS
claimed that they have no rights under
the laws Of Virginia or the ordinances
OF the city OF Richmond.
City-Attorney II. r. Pollard said yes
terdayN afternoon. when asked what the
immediate effect OF the decision would
be. that he had not anything 10 say as
yet.
1T IS a great victory for the city" said
Mr.. Pollard. land a complete defeat for
the Bell Company. They have no rights.
in my opinion. under the city's ordi-
nances'
Mr.. John c. Robertson president Of the
Richmond Telephone Company. was natu-
rallv much gratifed at the decision Of
the supreme Court. both on his own ac-
count and the city's.
1T is a great victory" he said, FOR
the principle that 4 city has the right 10
control it's own affairs ] am greatly
pleased for that reason and incidentally
on account of my own company"
Just how long IL will be before the Cir
cult Court will take the matter up and
settle H. no one knows, but it is not likely
10 be very long.
ORIGIN OF THE TROUBLE.
The controversy between the city and
the telephone company started from the
refusal OF the company to allow the joint
use Of their poles. The object of this joint
use was 10 prevent as far as possible
the multiplicity Of poles.
This refusal of the company was made
I'm 1891. In issi the city began to consider
nature to cover all telephones, and among
the requirements i'm the pole ordinance
passed was the matter Of joint use OF the
poles. Among the requirements I'm the
ordinance as TO the construction and use
Of conduits upon streets where IT was
not advisable TO have poles. was one as
TO the Joint use of conduits.
The two ordinances were passed In 1895.
In order to make the Bell Company
conform to these ordinances. the ordi-
nance allowing them certain privileges on
streets Of the city. passed In 1894. was
repealed in December. 1894. but as this
repealed ordinance could not 20 into effect
for twelve months the city had taken no
steps 10 enforce the ordinance against
the Bell Company. The company refused
70 accept its franchise. subject TO the
provisions and requirements OF the two
general ordinances in reference to poles
or condults
PRAYED PROTECTION
In October. 1896 ii went into the United
States court praying protection against
any action the city might take to force
the company to remove its poles from
the streets
In its bill It claimed protection upon
the following grounds:
/ That In 1866 Congress passed a law
authorizing telegraph companies TO enter
upon and use all post routes. that among
the uost routes are included the streets
upon which United states mails are de-
llvered. It claimed that while the act
onlv mentioned telegraph companies yet
the words were broad enough to include
telephone companies.
, That by reason Of their carrying
messages over their phone wires 10 the
western Union Telegraph Company for
patrons and receiving messages from that
Office over phone wires they did an inter-
sta,e business. as many OF the messages
-