Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-07-13

heretofore submitted his views upon the
proper construction Of this aforementioned
| legislation. Mr.. Duvall states. after abiding
to the fact that Congress, June 80, 1898.
sought to regulate the rates for telephone
service in the District that he considers
the question Of the authority Of the Com
missioners to permit the construction of
overhead wires outside the city of Wash
| ington to have been, in principle, deter
mined adversely to such claim by Chief
Justice Bingham February l, 1885, in
United States Electric Lighting Company
against the District Commissioners. 1t is
true. he says. that case involved a permit
for the construction of conduits in the pub
lie highway. but he explains that he is un-
able TO distinguish, matter of law be-
tween the authority to permit the construc-
ton OF conduits beneath the public high
way and the stringing of wires over the
same. "
Il freely admit says Mr.. DuvaIl. that
tne Commissioners from time to time have
issued permits for the stringing of over
head wires in the District of Columbia
prior to lSSS and subsequent thereto Such
wires as were in existence in the District
March =. 1891. and such electric light wires
as were in existence March 3, 1897 were ap-
parently legalzed by their recognition in
the District appropriations acts of those
dates. and 1t may be that some of the per-
mits since those dates have been improp-
eriy or inadvertently issued; but that fact.
II 1t be fact does not answer the legal
question now discussed"
Electric Lighting Wires
referring to the fact that allusion is
made In the brief of Messrs. Wilson and
Worthngton to electric lighting wires and
conduits Mr.. Duvall says this subject was
considered In extenso in Potomac Electric
POWER Company against the United States
Electric Lighting Company ct al, equity
NO 1SSSf. Supreme Court of the District of
ColumDla. The act of 1888 was under CON
Sloeraton in United States ex REL Mutual
district Messenger Company against Com
N H ~ washington Law Reporter.
81. December II. 1899. and the Court of An
peals IN that case, states Mr.. Duyall did
not suggest or intimate that the act had
any such effect as is now claimed for it,
LOT the court In concluding its opinion
said: THE foregoing conditions suggest
some of the difficulties that beset the Com
mlssloners in deciding whether they really
possess the power claimed for them and
.ne most that We feel justified in SAYING is
that the correctness of the answer thereto
Is involved in some doubt
congress has states Mr. DuvaII "leg-
lsiated upon the subject of telephone and
electrlc lighting wires with more particu-
iarity than on any other that has come
unuer my observation. Every grant of
power to the Commissioners on either sub
Ject mas been carefully circumScribed Com
gress has firmly indicated its intention to
retain the control of these matters and to
deal with them specifically. Its purpose to
allow the Commissioners liberty with re-
spect to existing electric lighting conduits
is finally and explicitly expressed In the
District appropriation act approved March 3
1879. Up to the present time, with a knowl-
edge of the existing complications and in
conVeniences respecting the telephone ser
vice. 1t has refraned from authorizing the
Commissioners to deal with the subject
generally.
An Underground Conduit.
Il observe that reference is made in the
brief to the permit for underground con-
duit from the corner of 14th and F streets
to the Wyatt building. for the purpose of
making connection between the telephone
conduit near the Ebbitt House corner and
the telephone Instruments in the Wyatt
building. This permit issued under
an opinion had the honor to render Janu-
airy 10. 1900 ! am not sure, however. that
the same conclusion would he reached after
the more careful consideration given the
general subject in March last.
The difficulties in the present situation
regarding the wires for telephone service
are greatly increased by reason of the fact
that efforts were made without success at
the last two sessions of Congress to obtain
Legislative relief. All of this proposed leg
islatiOn has been based upon the assump
ton that the Commissioners We're author
ity that is now claimed for them by the
telephone company. The unfortunate in
conveniences which doubtless exist because
of the Commissioners inability to grant
such permits as now desired by the
telephone company. in my opinion. cannot
supply the absence Of legal authority in
the premises.