New-York tribune., 1905-02-02
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Are Telephone Companies Bound to Respect
Themf-A Case in Point.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: The generous hospitality which your columns
accord 10 persons seeking advice and information
et YOUR hands, or that publicity which OF itself
otter remedies abuses Justifes IN hoping that
this cornunication will be equally well entertained.
What ! wish TO know IS whether individuals or
private property have any rights which telephone
companies are bound to respect? In order to make
ny grievance understandable 1t Is necessary to re-
late the circumstances attending it About ten years
sro tbsre came into my possession a few acres Of
vouur woodland lying on the shore OF Lake Cayuga,
over against Ithaca ". 7. Being a lover Of trees
these were 10 me valuable an adjunct to my
gunner cottage property there as was the lake
Itself they also furnished the means for the prac-
tice Of amateur forestry in a small way, Which
edde5 much 10 my pleasure and good health. Three
or four years later this woodland was bisected by
2 roadway-localy called acknowledgements the
opening o. which I made no protest, as II was
clearly to the advantage Of my neighbors by max
ing their cottages more easily accessible But. In
order permanently 20 screen my cottage from this
newly created highway a Of the best trees
parable! with It. but several feet within my in
closure "a post and wire fence) was selected to re-
main when softer wood trees and underbrush should
be CIT away. They were chiefly oaks. twenty-five
or thirty years old growing on their own roots and
not ohshoots from felled or decayed trees. took
pride IN them and in their future
On one CT ny visits to my cottage representative
Of the Bel Telephone Company, Of ithaca, called
asked permission erect telSpnOne pores
TIE boulevard in front Of my premises. On fear
being expressed that my trees might suffer he
promised that only should they escape injury
through carelessness, but that he would take them
under his especial personal protection. With that
verbal agreement a permit was given him to erect
poles outside my premises During the next sum-
fner flying visit discovered to me that one OF the
poles .n contact with my fence and another
vel within il and very my row OF trees But
made no complaint
Rather late n the following summer-that Of 1903
again went to my cottage and to my unspeakable
eaef found ten Of my cherished trees cut down and
lhg where they had fallen; that is 10 say, across
ehs wire fence which had been dragged down there
v. ana In front Of the cuvert which the full head
g eaEes had choked thus diverting the road drain
ss % ny driveway digging in it deep guIlles'
tszf'ng out the logs on which IL was partly
D1h and washing the stones and gravel over the
siass and about the dwelling. The trees had been
-slea by e practsed hand. all IN exactly the same
Iaaaer, end large coil Of telephone wire lay near
atm Even that circumstantial evidence as TO The
-sAuiy Of the perpetrator unnecessary. for he
Eone
q response to letter OF inquiry sent 10 the man
Tl OF the company. its legal adviser called upon
eho enoeavored TO convince me-though knew
0cDg well 10 the contrary-that the company
-. &c II 10 way responsible for the acts OF its en-
.ges The company had not ordered its lineulan
snet e.t Gown the trees therefore the company was
or 49, plI. since the employe had done SO WlIn-
- ..oefs, ! should look to him for damages; at
10 elne time he admitted that the latter had moth
bs,,-l.-L could be attached. However, while We
tas asy ooToy olssVowng any liability on the part OF
prsss.gShy, he would. he said. "as favor, ana 70
tss @ ss friendly relations. award me Sz5" As that
rspaeos4o barely renew my driveway, the oner was
tFsst ty rejected. represented TO him the IN
tte- a nao taken in my trees, and that through
cb5es uuctlon my place shorn OF one or its
rs ssbs2ie; that his company had broken faith with
hsi - Placed ite poles where no permission
a. .esn given had trespassed upon my inclosed
M ,<<S-4ockeo premises, and wantonly destroyed
NH .DeIty; that he had fn my opinion, no more
tssfr,ano - cut down trees my grounds than 10
q - ssLApiel any other house in ithaca; that.
have sho alternatives. would have preferred 10
be.p ~ cottage burned down. for that could have
q r. sklaeee IN few months whereas new trees
ouceT sNe OF the destroyed ones could not be pro-
Of n. ~ my lifetime. and that I fully aware
employers Liability law.
hot r..eply was that the courts of New-York did
tolrts ostlze sentimental values and that IL l.
No. suit II could be only for the value of trees
ssrs4s.hlng differently I took my case to legal
tsnrsr A44hea and began suit for 500 against the
ktss nc lawyers wrote that IL might be difficult
t<sn,. t1en who would be willing TO swear tnat
~ ~ ~ ny trees lessened the vaue OF my prop
vi hIe extent Of s50-the amount necessary for
Pa .s.gsllse ne. for never elsewhere have found
IL esI ~ indifference 20 trees-eKcept as fuel-as
Aee vsagrohs Of Ithaca Still. / felt that the
sa,ses Lot fairly met. and that was entitled TO
Ess whether the amount involved was sZS or
sssId ita~yers again wrote me that ray presence
se needed ct the trial, and held myself IN