Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-12-24
Permit for Same Outside City Limits
Upheld by Court.
OPINION BY JUSTICE BARNARD
Outcome Of Suit to Test Authority
of Commissioners.
HISTORY OF THE CASE

| Justice Barnard, in Equity Court No. 2,
| today made ruling of much local impor-
| lance and interest 1t was, in effect, that
| the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone
| Company has the right to string overhead
wires, for telephone purposes, outside the
| limits of the city Of Washington and with
in the District Of Columbia. Until a few
weeks ago the Commissioners of the Dis
trict Of Columbia declined to issue permits
for the stringing Of wires outside the city
limits on the ground that under the law
they were without authority to issue them.
Ia was recently concluded by the Commits
sioners, however, to issue a permit in order
that test case might be instituted and an
opinion secured from the court on the SUBJ
ject. The suit was brought in the name of
John H. Nolan, who is the owner of prop
erty along Columbia road, the Chesapeake
and Potomac Telephone Company being The
defendant.
The cause was argued by counsel for the
complainant and defendant and also by
the attorney for the District of Columb a,
who appeared as amicus curiae. The point
presented and argued most strenuousy was
the question of power in the District Com
mlSslOners as representing the municipal
corporation known as the District of CO.
lumDla, to grant permission to the defend
ant, or to any person, to string wires
across or over the streets or public roads
of Columbia lying outside of the present
city of Washington.
No Authority in Law.
1t was claimed by counsel for Commits
sicners, that notwithstanding the issuance
of the permission, the Commissioners did
not think they had the authority to issue
such permits, for the reason that they could
nowhere find, in express language, such
authority granted to them by any act of
Congress; and that in the absence of such
express authority all power of regulation
or legislation with reference to such mat
tiers remains where the Constitution places
it-in the Congress of the United States.
1t was claimed on behalf of the defendant
that there were certain acts of Congress
which cannot be construed properly with
out finding in them express power for the
Commissioners to grant such permits; and
that outside such legislation the power to
regulate such matters is necessarily vested
In the Commissioners by implication and
that 1t Is inherent in them as the represent
tatlves or managing officers of the munich
pal corporation established by the act Of
February 81, 1871.
Justice Barnard disposed of the case in
the following language: Being of the opin-
ion that the Commissioners acted with
authority, and that the wires may be law
fully strung as indicated in the application
for the permit; and not being able to see
that the complainant will be necessarily
or irreparably injured by the same being
the injunction and to dismiss the bill, with
out extending this opinion further"
History of Case.
The facts of the case are that November
the 18th last the defendant made applica-
ton to the Commissioners of the District
of Columbia for permission to string two
wires from telephone pole located on Co.
lumbia road In front Of premises 2437, over
the sidewalk. for distance of about twenty
feet, TO and into premises 2435 Columbia
road, for the purpose of making house
connection with the last named premises;
and the day following the permission
granted and the defendant notified thereof
by the permit clerk. Thereafter and be-
fore the defendant had made the connec-
ton from the pole to the residence referred
to the complainant filed the bill in the case,
wherein he stated that he Is the owner Of
the premises 2435 Columbia road and that
he had been informed of the permission
granted by the District Commissioners by
The defendant to string telephone wires
from the pole In Columbia road across the
sidewalk in front of hts premises for the
purpose Of making a connection with the
house. the same being occupied now by
tenant Of the complainant.
He further stated that the wires would be
strung by the defendant in total disregard
of his rights and without his consent there
to unless enjoined. and that If the wires
should be SO strung their unsightly appear
ance, the danger that must result from
their proximity to and connection with the
premises. and the obstruction of the view
from the dwellings. would greatly disfigure
and detract from the value of the property.
He further stated that the stringing Of the
wires would be Objectionable to the tenant
occupying the adjoining premises 2437. In
sEnnt of which the pole stands, and which
house : also the property Of the complain
ant He then stated that the defendant had
no legal or valid autiivi.iy - S..:... ,iie
wires from the line of poles over and across
a.. Pnr Aa
and that the Commissioners of the District
were without authority Of law. or other au-
thority whatever. to issue permits for the
stringlng Of wires to be used for telephone
purposes in the District Of Columbia out
side the limits Of the city of Washington;
and that the permit issued by the Commits
sioners was invalid and Of no force and eff
fest and that unless the stringinR Of the
wires was prevented by order Of the court
the property Of the complainant, which con-
sists Of the two houses mentioned and three
other houses adjoining, would be subjected to
and injured by the nuisance. Disagreement
and damage, as before stated, and the COM
plainant would be subjected to irreparable
damage and loss.
Defendants Answer.
To this bill the defendant filed answer ad-
hitting the compliments ownership of the
property and the application for the per-
mission to string the wires and the grant
ing of the same; and said that the line Of
poles now standing on Columbia road were
erected under a permit of the District Of
Columbia by the defendant in 1888, and
were continued in use until 1897, when they
were replaced by the permission of the
Commissioners. with new poles upon which
the wires therefore existing were strung,
and~the line of poles and wires so placed
have been used by the defendant from 1897
until the present time for telephone pur-
poses The defendant cited numerous in
stances Of supplying telephone service out
side the city limits under permit for the
use of the District of Columbia, the depart
ments Of the government and for private
residences. ~ -
The defendant set forth the claim that
the permission granted by the Commission
ers for the stringing of the wires on Column
bia road was valid. and averred that the
Commissioners had, and now have, full
power and authority to grant such permits
and to permit the erection of poles and the
stringing Of wires for telephone purposes in
all other localities and, other points outside
the city limits and within the District Of
Columbia. -