Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-05-23
this act to locate and operate its lines on

any or the streets OF the city Of Rich
mond In opposition 10 the municipal au-
thorities. The Circuit Court accepted this
view, but the Circuit Court of Appeals
somewhat modified it. holding that the
right under the act was subordinate 10
public use and private rights.
THE Circuit Court OF Appeals also held
that the privileges so granted were to. be
enjoyed I'm subordnation to public and
private rights, and that the municipality
could establish lawful provisions regu-
latipg the use of the highways mentioned
In the act of Congress. This being So
that court said, the injunction granted
by the Circuit Court Is too broad in its
language and effect. There should have
been a recognition Of the public power by
the municipal corporation, and the use
by the complainant Of It's poles and lines
should have been declared TO be subject
to such regulations and restrictions as
may now or may be hereafter imposed by
the City Council OF Richmond IN the nro-
per and lawful exercise of the police
power
1.-The cause was remanded to the Circuit
Court with instructions 10 modify the
terms OF the injunction therein granted,
so as to conform 10 the principles de-
clared in the opinion OF the Circuit Court
of Appeals. Judge Brawley concurred IN
the result but was not tncin' -
to so much OF the opinion as held tele-
phone company, such as was described
I'm this case, and whose business was
local In it's character. was within the
purview of the act of July q, 1866 re-
lating 10 telegraph companies. The case
was before the Supreme Court upon
writ of certiOrari.
JUSTICE HARLAN'S DECISION
aria In IL
ion, quotes extensively from other cases.
and among other things. says: 'Tne
plaintiffs charter. II is true, describes IL
as telephone and telegraph company.
Still. as Is disclosed by the bill. and the
evidence in the case, the business IN
which il was engaged and for the protec-
ton of which against hostile local action,
II invoked the aid of the Federal Court,
was the business transacted by using
what is commonly called n telephone.
which is described In an agreement De-
tween the Western Union Telegraph COM
pany and the National Bell Telephone
Company in 1879 as an instrument for
electricity transmitting or receiving ar
ticulate speech"
1T may be-" Justice Harlan says. that
the public policy intended to be promoted
by that act would suggest the granting
to telephone companies Of the rights ana
privileges accorded to telegraph oorpa-
MES And II may be that II the telephone
had been known and in use when the act
of 1866 was passed, Congress would have
embraced in it's provisions companies en-
ploying instruments for electrically trans
hitting articulate speech. But the ducS-
ton IS not what Congress might have
done I'm 1866. nor what 1t ought now to do'
but what was in its mind when enactlng
the statute in question.
CONGRESS SHOULD SAY so.
The Justice quotes from an English and
n MARYLAND case I'm support Of his opin-
ion. and. concluding, says: IF the act
be construed as embracing telegraph com
panies. Numerous questions are readily
suggested May a telephone company OF
right. and without reference to the VIII
! OF the States. construct and maintain us
wires along and over every city In the
country which II does business; or may
! the constituted authorities of city per-
nit the occupancy OF certain streets Only
/ for the business Of a company May me
/ company OF right fill every city ana HltJ
i'm n city Or town with it's poles on which
wires are strung: or may the local au-
thorIties forbid the erection OF poles AT
! all? The conclusion that the act OF 1871
| confers upon telephone companies the
| rights and privileges therein speclhed Is
! not authorized by any explicit Language
used by Congress, and can be justified by
! Implication only. If Congress desires 10
extend the provisions OF the act OF 1901
TO companies engaged ia the business oi
electrically transmuting arueuAil
speech-that is. to companies POPULARITY
| known as telephone companies and never
otherwise designated in common speech
let il do so in plain words 1t VIII DC
time enough when such legislation Is en-
acted 10 consider any such questions oil
constitutional law that may be suggested
] by it."
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
The decision is an extremely important
one. The progress Of the suit mas DeeI
watched with close interest, as upon tht
result hung similar issues in other cl'ies
! Very little hope Of victory was enter
tanned in this city. The result, indeed
had been looked upon by many as lore
gone conclusion after the decision oil th'
United States Circuit Court OF Appeals
and the announcement of the news on
the bulletin board of the Dispatch created
vast amount of interest and no httIe