The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-07-14
AERIAL ELECTRIC Wires
The Commissioners Unau .horized to
Grant Permits for Them.
The Attorney for the District Re-
plies to the Brief of the Chcsa-
pcakc and Potomac Telephone
COmnany-1hc Acts of Congress
Bearing ON the Subject Quoted.

Andrew b. Duvall, the Attorney for the
District. yesterday handed to the Commits
siorors his opinion on the brief of the at
tcIreys for the Chesapeake and Potomac
Telephone Company, relative to the string
ing Of overhead telephone wires in that
part of the District outside of the city OF
Washington. The matter was referred &c
the Attorney upon application Of the CON-
pany for q change in the monthly permit
giving them authority to string wires u,
aforesaid.
Mr.. Duyall states that he is unable &c
concur in the conclusion reached in said
brief, namely, that the Commissioners have
authority to issue such a permit. He
states that he will not now undertake tc
reply i'll full 10 the arguments OF the at
torney of the company, because in his
opinions handed to the Commissioners on
August 81, 1899, and on March %, 1900 he
practically covered the ground taken by
the lawyers In the brief referred to. He
declares that he is unable to agree with
the contention that the clause in the APP
preparation act, approved July is, 1883.
that the Commissioners of the District of
Columbia shall not, after September 10.
1ssS, permit or authorize any additional
telegraph, telephone. electric lighting, or
other wires to be erected or maintained on
or over any OF the streets or avenues OF
The, city of Washington" by necessary i'm
plication authorizes the Commissioners to
allow the stringing of overhead wires else
st fNA1,, ,w.hg tl.r, sr
the city of Washington. Continuing, Mr.
Duvsll says:
The maxim 'Expressio unius est ex-
clusio alterius' is invoked in aid OF this
contention, but the cases cited in the brief
do not go to the proposition that the mega
tion OF one thing operates ex proprio vigore
as an affirmative grant to do another thing.
1t is plain that Congress, in the act OF
July is. 1858, was not dealing with the
subject Of overhead wires except as they
existed in the city of Washington. 1t was
not dealing with overhead wires in any
other part of the District of Columbia.
IF the act Of 1883 is TO be construed as
is claimed then it authorized the Com
missioners to permit the erection OF over
head wires in the alleys of the city Of
Washington. because 1t contained no in
hibition against the erection of wires in
alleys. / suppose, however, it would not
thorized the use of alleys for telephone
purposes. But why not if the main con-
tention is correct? Congressional legisla-
ton was necessary to accomplish such
use, and express authority was given the
Commissioners to permit the alleys to
be SO used by a clause in the District
appropriation act approved August Z, 1894.
The act OF July, 1855, also authorized
the Commissioners during the session OK
Congress to allow wires to be laid under
any street, alley. highway, fooiway, or
sidewalk in the District In this part OF
said act of 1888 Congress was dealing With
overhead wires outside of the city OF
Washington, and the only authority con-
ferred upon the Commissioners was to
allow, within the limited time, such wires
10 be laid under ground. Apply the nazim
expressio unius est exclusio alterius, TO
this part of the act and how then can ii
be argued that the authority to do the
most reprehensibfe thing, to allow the
stringing of overhead wires, either sur
vived or WAS granted and continues TO
the present time?
The District appropriation act. ap-
proved March 2, 1859, contained this pro-
vision: That the Commissioners OF the
District Of Columbia may hereafter. under
such reasonable conditions as they may
prescribe, authorize the overhead wires OF
any telephone, telegraph, or electric light
ing company TO be laid under any street,
alley, highway, footway, or sidewalk in
the District. whenever in their judgment
the public interest may require the ex-
srcise of such authority This authority
was continued until the termination of the
Fifty-first Congress. Here Congress vas
dealing with overhead wires throughout
the District OF Columbia. and not word
is said by way Of authorization to the
Commissioners or recognition oil any au-
thority In them 10 allow wires to be strung
in the county. / do not find any such au-
thcrity conferred on the Commissioners
by any subsequent legislation.
The District Appropriation act, APP
proved August 6. 1890, authorized the
President TO appoint a board 10 consider
the location, arrangement, and operation
Of electric wires in the District of CO.
lumbia, and to report to the President not
later than December l. 1891 A clause in
the District appropriation act approved
March 3, 1891, provided that until action
by Congress upon the report of the last
named board. or until April j, 1892, the
Commissioners should not permit the adj |
ditional construction of more than five
miles of conduits for electric lighting pur-
poses nor more than five miles of conduits |
for telephone service, this 10 apply 10 all |
permits heretofore granted under existing |
law. but not to apply to necessary street |
or house connections for electric service. |
Here Congress was dealing with the en-
tire District and II further limited the act
Of March 1889, which conferred the only 1
power the Commissioners then had
After quoting the laws referred 10. Mr.. |
Duyali continues: Il consider the ques
ton Of the authority OF the Commission
ers to permit the construction of overhead
wires outside OF the city OF Washington to
have been in principle, determined ad-
versely 10 such claim by Chief Justice
Bingham. February /, 1896. in the case OF
the United States Electric Lighting Com
pany VS.. Ross ct al. That case, il is true,
involved permit for the construction of |
conduits in the public highway, but / am
unable to distinguish, q matter of law,
between the authority to permit the con-
struction of conduits beneath the public |
and the stringing OF wires owe.
the same.
Il freely admit that the Commissioner,