Evening star., 1902-08-28
AGREEMENT REACHED
Contract Made for Street
Lighting for Present Year.
THE COMPANY YIELDS
BUT WILL ACCEPT PAYMENTS
UNDER PROTEST.
Terms of Contract Provide for Com
pensation of $50 for Each
New Lamp.

JCAtSSbL1O4i VI tDf-O AO1 A~t1So
New Lamp.
The District Comm; ;ss.oners have reached
an agreement with the Washington Gas
Light Company with regard to the contract
for street lighting during the present fiscal
year. The new appropriation act provided
that 70 more than $50 a year should be
paid for each street lamp burning gas. and
that this s2G should also cover the cost of
erecting any new gas lamps the Commits
sioEers might order. The officials of the
gas company at first declined to enter into
any such contract. They said the cost Of
erecting and maintaining a gas lamp the
first year amounted to about S4T- Now
however. they nave decided to make the
contract ard to accept under protest the
$50 for new lamps, The supposition is that
the company viii make a claim before
Congress for the remainder of the amount
they claim the lamps cost. Last year there
were about 436 new lamps erected. Prob
ably the same number will be put up dur
ing the present fiscal period, and in that
event the gas company will have quite
large bill To present to Congress.
The Commissioners are much pleased
with the outcome of the matter. Hereto
fore the gas company has been paid 80
year for each lamp. while the cost of erect
ing new lamps has been paid for separately
out Of the general fund set aside for street
lighting. Congress decided that the so
should cover the cost Of erection and MAIN
teuanCe and pay well for a years Sds
supply.
The Intention Of Congress.
Commissioner Macfarland and his asso-
cIates were present at the Capitol when the
legislation was being framed, and they
knew what the intention of Congress was.
They took mp the matter with the Wash
irgtDn and Georgetown Gas Light COM
panies and the result of the ensuing neSo-
tiatioUs was a decision on the part of the
Washington company to accept the con-
tract under the terms Of the provisO in the
District act limiting the amount to be paid
for erection, main- euanCe &c. at SO. Pay
m-ut for each new lamp viii be accepted
under strong protest. the company reseTv-
Ing Its rights To any subsequent claim in
the premises. The Georgetown company
today also SiSnlNti its acceptance. In the
case Of the latter company. however, there
IS little at issue, very few new lamps
were erected in its territory last year and
but few viii be put up this season.
Item Which Caused Discussion.
The item in the District appropriation bill
which caused the discussion was as fol-
lows:
''Lighting-For Illuminating material,
lighting. eXtiuguishing repairing and clean
ing public lamps on avenues. streets, roads
and alleys; purchase and expense of erec-
ton and maintaining new lamp posts. street
designations. lanterns and fixtures; replac-
Ing and repairing lamp posts and lanterns
damaged or unit for service; for rent of
store rooms, carriage Of material, livery and
other necessary items and services, 500,
upo."
Thus far the language of the act is the
same as in former years but it continues:
Provided. That no more than $50 per an
nun for each street lamp shall be paid for
gas and no more than so for oil, lighting,
eNtE4uiShinG. repairing. painting clean
ing. purchasing and expenses of erecting
and maintaining new lamp posts street
designations. lanterns and fixtures under
any expenditure provided for in this act"
When the gas officials protested against
receiving SD for erecting and maintaining
new lamps the Commissioners referred the
matter to Mr.. DuvaII the corporation C0un-
sci for his advice. Mr.. Duval decided that
according to all laws Of statutory construc-
ton the pTovtSo in the act was repugnaut
10 the general clause.
Text of the Opinion.
In his opinion Mr.. Duvau said:
The electrical engineer calls attention
10 the fact that it was the purpose of Con-
gress to have the prices paid for gas. oil
and WeIsbach street lights include pur-
chasing, expenses of erecting and main
tanning new lampDosts. etc. and that this
appears from the report OF the House COM
mlttee on appropriations and the hearings
before the subcommittee.
1t IS very doubtful whether recourse
may be had to such sources Of information
In the construction of statutes. Under
some circumstances and for some purposes
they may be examined and considered in
aid Of construction, but not for the pur-
pose OF reading into the statute an unex-
pressed intention inconsistent with and de-
structive of its plainly expressed portion.
While il may have been the intent OF
Congress TO require the contracting COM
panies 10 purchase, erect and maintain new
lampoSts at their own expense. am of the
opinion that there was a failure to so ex-
press that purpose as to make It effective.
Some means for the enforcement of such
purpose should have been expressed; some
condition or penalty should have been de-
Cldred as an incident TO the failure of the
contractors TO purchase erect and maintain
new lamp posts, etc.
i am unable to advise that under any
rule OF statutory construction the proviso
Is effective TO accomplish such a purpose.
II seems 10 me the matter is left in the
category OF repugnant clauses in statute"
The Agreement Ratified.
The counsel decided the Commissioners
could enter into a contract as formally.
purchasing the lamp posts themselves out
OF the general appropriation Of $4,000 and
paying the gas companies so a year for
supplying the gas and maintaining the
lanterns. Notwithstanding this, however.
the Commissioners went on the theory that
Congress had expressly intended that no
more than SO should be paid for a lamp
and that this should include the cost of
purchasing and erecting any new lamps
they might order. Now an agreement has
been reached and the gas companies will
treCI lhe new lanterns at their own cost
and receive the SD specified under protest
Ine Commissioners have issued final or