The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-01-27

LlME1NlNZ6GG
2z45 9 z0Y,2zZzzzz va!
afterwards removed to Richmond. Col.
G. Ii. Mcclure, superintendent for years
Of tho Bell Company and later OF tho
Richmond Company,
~ local exchange was started by the
Bell Company in Richmond In 1879 For
time 1t docs not appear that the rola-
tons OF the company and tho city were
very clearly defined In terms Of fran
cEisc ordnance. Tho business was In its
infancy. On the Goth day Of June, 1874,
tho Council passed IN ordinance granting
TO the Boil Company IN ordinance. brief
as compared to tho franchise recently
passed, with no limitation as to rates and
irdetelmlnato as to period, except tho
provision that tho ordnance might DO at
any tiino repealed by the Council such
REPEAL to take effect twelve months after
the repeating ordinance hocnmc n law.
FRANCHISE REPEALED.
During the next ten years there wns
no notable feature Of the telephone sit
untion other than tho fact that tho SER
Vice given by tho Bell Company came to
DO tho occasion of creator and greater
complaint until on November q, 1894. the
Chamber OF Commerce forwarded to the
City Council resolution setting forth
that tho service givon was unsatlsfac-
tory and tho rates Charged were unrea-
sonable. Apart from this ground OF gr!ev.
npco there had also arisen n sharp dis
pute between tho city and the company
In regard to tho number Of FREQ phones
which the company should furnish the
city. Tho upshot of this contention was
an ordinance. approved December IA.
1884. by which the franchise OF the South
ern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Com
pany was repealed to take effect one
year from date.
December, 1904. marks tho BEGINNING OF
eight years of warfare between tho city
and tho Bell Company. Tho situation
soon became moro complex by reason or
the presence Of local company In the
field. During practically oil Of this pc
Rod tho fight WIS going on In tho courts,
the Council or tho legislature.
IN THE COURTS.
After tho repeal OF the Bell franchise,
and tho Richmond Company's plant was
nearing completion. steps were under
consideration to require the Bell Com
pany to cease operations and move its
poles and wires from the streets, Be-
fore tho city took action Of this charac-
ter, the Bell Company made application
unitod States Circuit Court. restraining
the city from interfering with tho con-
duct Of its business and thus rendering
null mud void tho ordinance of December
IA, 1894. Upon appeal to the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals the Injunction
was sulltnined, the city again lost, and
tho company won. These courts botn
held tint under the so-callcd telegraph
statue" Of 1856 n telephone company was
secure from molestauon or interference
by the city authorities
The cause was removed by certlnrl
unto the Supreme Court OF the United
States That court reversed tho conclus-
ions reached by tho lower courts, decihr-
ing that tho complaint company being
a telephone. company, did not como within
tho provisions or tho act of 1860. which
granted privileges and protection to tee-
graph companies. because telephone com
panies were in no sense telegraph COM
panies.
ends thus: what right the appellee the
Southern Bell Telephone Company, had
or has under the laws of Virginia and
the ordinances of tho city.of Richmond, IL
a question which he Clrcui Cour did
not decide. but expressly waived. It Is APP
propriate that that question should be
first considered and determined BY the
court OF original jurisdiction.
The decretal order follows: "The cause
10 remanded with directions for such fur
Their proceedings In tho Circuit Court as
may be IN conformity with his opinion
and consistent with law,
"A NOTABLE VICTORY.
This was a notable victory for the city
and tho great turning point In the ltlgn-
ton. The suit had attracted the widest
interest. The principles involved were
recognized us OF the largest moment tn
cities. Applications for the briefs In the
case came from city attorneys and law
yers from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The cause having been rernanded was
heard In the Circuit Court by Judge Goft
That court held that under the laws OF
Virginia and the ordinances OF the city
of Richmond tho Southern Bell Telephone
and Telegraph Company had no right to
use the streets of tho city. For this rea-
son 1t denied the relief asked, dissolved
tho injunction previously granted and dis
missed the bill.
Upon appeal to the United States Cir
cult Court OF Appeals was taken The
case was argued before Judges Simon
ton Brawley and Purnell on May 7th
Judge A. l.. Holiday and MI. Iiill Carter
| representing the company, and City a..
| torney Henry Il, Pollard, the city, The
case was decided on July 9th, 1000. an
opinion being handed down affirming thu
aecree OF the lower court. Another ap-
peal to the Supreme Court was tak,nl
and the case was on the docket OF that
court awaiting argument when by re
passage of the franchise ordinance q
the Bell Company on October 18th, 1901
It was withdrawn by the Bell Company
this being one of t'gN provisions or con-
| d!tions Of the ordinance
THE NEW COMPANY.
Following the appeal of the Bell fran
chise In December, 1891, two local COM
panies were organized and n lively fight
before he Council followed After a
warm contest between the Richmond
| STANDARD Telephone Company and the
| Home Telephone Company. which lasted
! for some months. a franchise was grant
ed on Eeasmi,er 9th. 1895, to the Rich
mond Standard Telephone Company, now
The Richmond Telephone Company, for a
period of fifteen yefrs and ~ rates OF
S26 and SEA for business and residence
/ service Mr. lnhn4C G.. 4R obinSOn, wa9 nrnst :