Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-07-16
Corporation Counsel on Gas
Lamp Question.
FAILURE IN WORDING
NO DOUBT THAT LAWMAKERS
INTENT WAS RIGHT.
MI. Duvall Oplnes That Gas Companies
Are Not Required to Erect
New Lamps.

mas submitted an opinion TO the DLStr1ct
Commissioners in which he holds that the
gas lighting companies of the District are
not required to erect new gas lamps under
the provision in the new District appro-
priation bill, which says not more than $40
year shall be paid for each lamp, includ-
ing construction, repair, etc. Mr.. Duvall
says that while it may have been the in
tent of Congress to require the contracting
companies to purchase. erect and maintain
new lamp posts at their own expense, he is
of the opinion that there was failure to
so express that purpose as to make 1t eff
fective.
Upon communication from Walter C.
Allen. the electrical engineer of the Dis
trict. the Commissioners asked Mr. Duyau
TO interpret the provisions of the District
bill on the subject of lighting" The item
IN the appropriation bin so far as it related
TO the subject of the communication and
the question In the minds of the Commits
slons. was follows:
Lighting - For Illuminating material,
lighting, extinguishfng, repairing and clean
ing pubic lamps on avenues, streets roads
and alleys; purchasing and expense of
erecting and maintaining new lampposts,
street designations, lanterns and fixtures;
moving iampposts, painting lampposts and
lanterns; replacing and repairing lamppoSts
and lanterns damaged or unfit for service:
livery and other necessary items and SER
vices, 0,0O0; provided that no more than
$40 per annum for each street lamp shall be
paid for gas and no more than $40 for oil,
Lighting, eXtingl,ishing, repairing, painting,
cleaning, purchasing and expense of erect
ing and maintaining new lampposts, street
designations, lanterns and fixtures, under
any expenditure provided for in this act
Mr.. Duval1's Interpretation.
Mr.. Duval, the counsel of the Commits
soners, says:
1T appears that during the past fiscal
year there were maintained 6, 753 gas lamps,
at $40 per lamp per annum, and 1855 oil
lamps, ~ SIS per lamp per annum. The
District purchased and owns all the posts,
lanterns, glass. street designations, stand
pipes, connections to mains, etc 1t also
has paid for the cost of erecting the posts,
including the necessary resurfacing Of
street pavements. The electrical engineer
desires to be informed
First, whether under the legislation in
the current appropriation bill the District
can legally contract with the various COM
panies to maintain light, extinguiSh, re-
pair paint and clean these 6,I53 gas lamps
and ,166 oil lamps, the companies using
the Districts posts, lanterns signs. ETC.,
and receiving from the District no more
than so per lamp per annum therefor?
Second. whether for each new lamp es-
tabfished the District can purchase the
posts, lanterns, SiSuS, fixtures, ETC., pay 1OF
the erection OF the posts and the resurfac-
ing of the street. and in addition pay the
companies not to exceed $40 per annum for
each new lamp established?
The above mentioned item for lighting
in the current appropria ton bill differs in
the phraseoogy Of its provso from that of
the appropriation act for the last year in
TWO respects, the pay for each oil lamp,
lighting, etc, IS changed to $50, and the
following words are added: Purchasing
and expense of erecting and maintaining
new lamp posts. street designations, lam
terms, ana fixtures
'ThtSe additional words. il will be OBJ
served. relate exclusively to new lamp
posts. They are reproduction in totidem
verbs of the second clause of the general
legislation appropriating s2OO,o00. This
clause III the proviso as it stands is repug-
nant to the clause in the general legislation
making the appropriation. We have here
an appropriation among other things eX-
plicitly for purchasing and expense of
erecting and ma intafning new lamp posts,
etc. and the question is whether this gen
eral legislation is rendered nugatory by the
repugnant proviso. One of the rules of
statutory construction as laid down by
Chancellor Kent Is:
Doesn't Agree With Gas Company.
When the expression in a statute is
special or particular, but the reason Is gen
eral. the expression should be deemed gen.
eral. and the reason and intention Of the
lawgiver will control the strict letter Of
the law when the latter would lead to pal
pable injustice, contradiction and absurdity
A saving clause in a statute is to be re-
jected when it is directly repugnant to the
purview or body of the act, and could not
stand without rendering the act inconsiSt-
ent and destructive of itself.
" But there is a distinction in some Of the
books between saving clause and pro-
yiso in the statute, though the reason of
the distinction is not very apparent. A
statute renders it equally nugatory and
void as a repugnant saving clause: and 1t Is
difficult to see why the act should be de-
StrOyed by the one and not by the other, or
why the proviso and the saving clause
when inconsistent with the body of the act,
should not both of them be equally reject
cd
The Court of Appeals in a recent case
(Groff agt. Miier) c.ted this authority
with appreciation.
1T would be q contradiction in terms and
| lead to an absurdity to read this proviso
as requiring a party contracting with the
District to purchase, erect and maintain
new lamps, posts etc, when the general
appropriation provided for their purchas Sc,
erection and maintenance by the District.
An act of Congress is not to be so con-
strued if any other reasonable construction
can be given to it's terms.
1T is claimed by counsel for the Wash
| ington Gas Light Company that the proviso
| is to be read: Provided. that no more than
| $40 per annum for each street lamp shall
| be paid for gas. and that the words light
| ing. extinguishng, repairing, painting and
CLEANING relate to oil and not gas.
Il do not agree with this contention. The
! phraseology of the proviso in the appro-
| priation act for the fiscal year ending June
! 20. 1902 was almost Identical viz:
" provided, That no more than $50 per
t annnm for each street lamp shall be paid
! for gas and no more than $50 for oil, light
| ing. extinguishing. repairing, painting and
| cleaning under any expenditure provided
| for in this act
| And the contemporaneous construction
placed by the parties upon that phraseology
| was otherwise.
1T is a settled rule of statutory expost-
| ton that the contempOraneous construction
| of statute will be followed by the courts
| unless plainly erroneous.
Congress at Fault.
| cit is further claimed by counsel for the
gas light company that the remaining
| words of the proviso. viz, Purchasing. cx-
pense Of erecting and maintaining new
| lamp posts, &C. is a limitation as to the
| amount which Is to be paid therefor 1e
| that no more than 500 can. be paid for the
| purchase. erection and maintaining of each
| new lamp post.
| The electrical engineer calls attention to