Los Angeles herald., 1910-10-20
News of the Courts
SUPREME COURT HEARS
PASADENA PHONE FIGHT
Arguments Made in important
Case and Briefs viii Be
Filed in Few Days

Whether Pasadena can compel the
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph COM
pany to obtain franchises to streets in
that city before setting poles and
stringing wires is a question that now
rests with the state supreme court.
No decision will be announced, howeV-
er, until briefs are filed by counsel for
the municipality and the corporation.
Arguments were heard yesterday and
the case submitted after John w.
Shenk, city attorney of Los Angeles,
and Jesse H. Steinhart, representing
the city and county of San Francisco,
had been given fifteen days in which
to file briefs, after which the telephone
corporation will have fifteen days to
answer by brief.
While the decision involves, primar-
lily, Pasadena's right to shut the COM
pany out of that city unless it obtains
franchises for its poles and wires, it is
of the utmost Importance to every city
in the state for the reason that 1t will
establish a precedent.
The crux OF the controversy is the
construction that should be put on Sec
ton $50 of the civil code as it existed
prior to it's re-enactment in 1905. IL
granted to telegraph companies the
right to occupy public highways. Tele-
phone companies were not mentioned.
Attorneys for the telephone company
say the word telegraph" embraces
telephone" Attorneys for the city
take the contrary stand.
BASED ON OLD STATUTE
The telephone company's franchise in
Pasadena expired in 1907. The COM
pany refused to ask for new fran
chise, claiming the right to occupy the
streets without a franchise and without
paying for the privilege. Its claims
were based on certain acts OF congress
and an ancient California statute, and
on the further contention that tele-
phone lines are engaged in interstate
commerce and not subject to municipal
control
The fight became so bitter that the
city cut the company's cables when 1t
refused to nay the city for the privi-
lege of occupying Pasadena streets.
Oral arguments were heard yesterday
John Perry Wood representing Pasade-
ma. CITY Attorney Shenk for Los Ange-
les, Jesse H. Steinhart for the city
and county OF San Francisco, and At
torneys Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro OF
San francisco for the Pacific Telephone
and Telegraph company
The principal questions involved IN
yesterdays arguments, as defined by
the court, were:
"Did section 536 of the civil code as it
existed prior to it's re-enactment in l9O5
include telephone corporations?
"Was such section repealed or sus-
pended as to cities and towns organ
lied and existing under the general
municipal corporation act of 1888, as
cities or towns of the sixth class by
reason of provisions contained in said
act%'
CITY MUST. PAY COSTS
Attorney Wood in his argument said
| that there is a distinction between a
| telegraph and a telephone company,
| and that the legislature, in gHnting a
charter to a corporation for telegraph
line. did not necessarily have in nina
telephone lines also.
"There is a vast difference" he said,
between a telegraph and telephone
line. The former brings, perhaps, one
line into a city, while a telephone COM
pany occupies nearly every street with
a great number of poles and wires,
! which greatly increase the danger to
| life and limb. ,
"In many. cases in the courts of TINS
country and England experts have been
| called. and it has been conclusiVely
shown that there is a great difference
between the telegraph and telephone
Every time the legislature referred to
! telegraph line we have no right to as
sumo that it included telephone sys-
| TENS also.
"The city must bear the cost of tear
ing up and repairing the streets: Upon
the municipality rests the liability Oh
damage from overhead wires, Is IL
right, then, that a telephone company
or, perhaps, twenty different companies
| should be allowed to use the streets in
discriminatory without the consent OF
the governing body of the city?
ut has been the trend of all legisla-
tive enactments of this state, as well as
the expressed policy of this court, tc
give the control of city streets to the
! municipality"