Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-07-13
THIRD TIME DECIDED
Authority of Commissioners in Matter
Of Stringing Wires.
UNDER THE APPROPRIATION BILL
Attorney DuvaII's Construction Of
the Acts of Congress.
ELECTROMAGNETIC RIGHTS

For the third time the attorney for the
District, Mr. A. B. Duvall, has advised the
Commissioners that they are without au-
thority to grant permits to string telephone
wires and to make house connections for
telephone service in that part Of the Dis
trct outside of the city of Washington. and
for the third time the Commissioners have
approved such opinion of their legal adj
wiser. The first time the Commissioners
were so advised by Mr.. Duvall was the 31st
of August, 1899. and the I'D of last March
he gave them the same advice The effect
of such counsel has been, as heretofore
stated in The Star. to prevent the residents
of the suburban sections from obtaining
the use of telephones not already erected
outside the city limits Time and time
again since the rendition of Mr.. DuvalTS
first opinion upon the subject the Commits
siOners have refused the desired permits,
although, as they have frequently eX-
planned to the managers of the telephone
company and to those desiring telephones.
they fully appreciated the inconvenience
and annoyance resulting from their refusal
to grant the permits for the stringing of
the necessary wires. But. being advised
that they have no authority of law to issue
the permits. the Commissioners have in
variably in formed the applicants that. until
Congress gives them such authority by eX-
express ieg.-la ion. they will be compelled
10 alher" to the position taken by them
upon the advice of their attorney.
T'p1n scNcIai occasions the attorneys for
tn Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone
Company have attempted to convince the
Commissioners that the opinion of their
legal adviser upon the subject is not srs-
Ia ned by the law in the case but without
effect. and several days ago these attorneys.
Mr.. Jere. VI. Wilson. who is also the pres
ident of the company, and Mr.. A. S. Worth
inSton filed a printed brief with the Com
miSsi'ners. This brief was referred by the
Commissioners 10 Mr. Duvall. and in re-
porting upon it he adhered to his original
opinion
Reasons for Disagreeing.
Mr.. Duvall says he is unable to agree with
the contention of Messrs. Wilson and
W0rth!nston that the clause in the District
appropriation act OF July 1s. 1885 that
the Commissioners of the District shall not
after September IL. 1SSs, permit or author
ize any additional telegraph. telephone,
electric lighting other wires to be erect
ed or maintained on or over any of the
streets or avenues of the city Of Washing
ton. by necessary implication authorizes
the Commissioners to allow the stringing of
than in the city of Washington. The
maxim "Expressio unius est exclusio al
terius' is invoked. explains Mr.. Duvall in
aid Of this contention. but the cases cited
w
Worthingtcn do not, he thinks. go to the
proposition that the nesation of one thing
operates eX proprio vigore as an affirma-
tive grant to do another thing.
Mr. Duvall believes it is plain that Con-
gross in the act of July Is 1SSS was not
dealing with the subject of overhead wires
except a. they existed in the city OF Wash
ington nor dealing with overhead wires in
any other portion of the District. If that
act IS to be construed as the telephone
company claims it should he then 1t au-
thur!Zes. says Mr.. DuvalI. the Commits
sionerS to permit the erection of overhead
wires in the alleys of the city because II
contains no Inhibition against the wires in
alleys. Mr.. Duvall suppnsrs however il
would not he seriously claimed that this
act authorizes the use Of alleys for tele-
phone purposes. But why not. he asks if
the main contention is correct?
The Use of Alleys
Congressional legislation. however. was
necessary to accomplish such use of the
alleys. express authority having been given
the Commissioners to permit the alleys to
be SO Lsed by a clause in the District ap-
preparation act of August !. 1894. The act
OF ISIS also authorized the Commissioners
during that session of Congress to allow
overhead wires to be laid under any street,
alley. highway. fOotway. or sidewalk in
the District. In this part of that act.
states Mr.. DUvall. Congress was dealing
with overhead wires outside the city and
'i'
mlsSi0Eers was to allow. in his opinion.
within Il limited time. such wires to BE- laid
under ground. Apply the maxim EXPIRES
siO uniuS est cxCiusiD aItcriuS'' to this part
of the act. and now. asks Mr.. Duvall, can
it then be argued that the authority to do
the more reprehenslb.e thing, to allow the
Stringing Of overhead wires. either sur
vived or was granted and continues to the
present time?
the District appropriation act of March
>. 1854, contained this provision: That the
q $ h.
after, under such reasonable conditions as
they IEaS prescribe. auth rizc the overhead
wires of any 'eiesfaph. telephone or cleo
tr!c Hight company to be laid under any
street. alley. Highway, fOotway or side
walk in thu District whenever in their
judgment the public interest may require
the exercise ri such authority This au-
thority. says MIR. Duvail. was tn con inUe
until ;hc termination of the Fifty-irst
Congress and here Congress was. he holds,
deaIius with overhead wires throughout the
entire District, and not a word he points
out i s4il by way of authorization to the
commissioners or recosuiti of any
thOrity in them to allow wires to be strung
in the county. No such authority has been
conferred. contends Mr.. Duvali. by any
sub selucnt congressional legislation
The Act of 1870.
The District appropriation act of August
e. 1>gn explains Mr.. Duvall, authorizes the
President to appoint a board to consider
the location. arrangement and operation of
electric wires in the District, and to report
to him not later than December l. 1891.
clause in Inc District appropriation act of
March :. 1851, provided that until action of
Congr.s- ppm the report CT this board or
until y I'll j. i>.2 the Comm 'ssioners should
not p.lnlit the additional obstruction of
more = ~, Ey.. miles OF cCnduits for electric
iightirs, ,--E,aScs, nor more than five miles
of con.iIiilS for telephone service. This.
says MIR. BuVall. was to apply to all per
Il .1l,.a tctttN 1.atK
Iut not to necessary street or house con-
rectfcrs for electric service: and here, con-
tends Mr. buVail Congress was dealing
with the on'ir. District. further limiting the
..rr nf 1>>l which conferred in his opinion