The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-01-17
TELEGRAPH CASE
IN RENE court
Western Union Goes to Highest
Federal Tribunal to Resist
City Ordinance.
LOAN SHARK APPEAL UP, TOO
Measure Fixing True Building
Line Third Richmond Case
OIL Docket.

Printed briefs and record of proceed
lnss nave been tled by the city In tho
United states Supreme Cour, in tho
iitlSation with the Western Union Telc-
Sraph Company. involving the validity
Oh the underground" ordinance. re-
curing the placing of electric wires
under ground In certain sections of the
city. The case Will probably be argued
at the October term of tho court, and
final verdict is expected before this
end of the year
inc litigation has been going on for
several years. and Involves several
'ntricuatc points of constitutional law.
City Attorney Pollard has represented
the city. ana Judge \. l.. Holiday the
company. In the United States Circuit
Court the city won its contention more
than year ago. As constitutional
questions were involved which would
ultimately require n decision Of the
supreme Court. appeal to the United
states Circuit Court OF Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit was waived and the
case taken at once to the highest tri-
bunal. where a verdict in favor of the
city Is confidently expected.
Poles SIN Obstruct streets
Meanwhile. however. a stay of pro-
ceedinEs prevents the city from remov-
ing unsiEhtly poles ana wires from
i'iodu street ana Olncr important thor
onghfares. although all other com
panies operating hero. including tho
Virginia Railway and Power Company
and the southern Sell Telephone and
telegraph Company have come In and
constructed underground cpnduits. II
has been suggested among members of
the Council that since there has re-
Gently been effected a close anilia ton
amount ting almost to a Joint ownership
between the Western Union and thu
southern Bell Telephone Company. that
The telegraph company might Withdraw
It's appeal and come IN and use the Bcll
company condults already laid.
Cnnp"t Play nnth sides.
IT It be shown that the two COM
panics are in reality as close together
rs has been represented. some members
Of tho Council say they VIII oppose
granting further extensions Of rights
to the Bell Telephone Company until
its partner comes In and agrees 10
abide by the city ordinances-!n other
words. IL the companies arc really one
ana the same or practically So. they
cannot come IN as the Bell Telephone
Company and enjoy city monopoly,
with many favors and extensions from
the municipality. and ~ the same time
as the Western Union nght tho city IN
the courts and seek to prevent the
great Improvement proposed by the
udDptlOn OF an underground IlStrlct.
Local officials OF the telegraph COM
pnny say that whatever may he tho
facts as to Joint ownership, they arc
operating separately. Attorneys for
the Western Union deny thai the tclc-
graph company Is lighting the city, but
claim that constitutional point OF I'M
portancc is at stake. and that Rich
mond is merely being made test in
stance In order 10 get decision from
the highest court,
Building Line Ordinance.
The city of Richmond Will be no
stranger In the United states Supreme
Cour, at its term next fall. having no
less than three cases TO be argued and
decided by that tribunal. Besides the
Western Union litigation, there is what
Is known as the Eubank case appealed
from the Supreme Court Of the state
OF Virginia, which upheld the Chancery
Court OF the city OF Richmond as to the
validity of the building line. city
ordinance which provides manner In
which a certain proportion OF property
owners on any one block may fix a line
beyond which no one shall build.
Eubank ms nonresident property
owner. claimed that the law practical
ly coniiscated his property in front OF
that line.
After Loan sharks.
Another and more farreachng case
which comes up on appeal Is that Of
Bradley and others against the city OF
Richmond. known as the loan shak
case" Some years ago the Council
Committee on Finance imposed a spe-
cial license tax on what are called
private bankers" that is, loan agencies
charging more than the legal rate of
interest on short time loans, made
practically without security. There
were then ten such private bankers In
Richmond, some of them operating as
agencies of concerns having Offices all
over the country. 1t was shown that
In some cases interest had been
charged loans TO poor people as
high as 10 per cent. per month. Tho
loan agencies claimed that the special
license was a discrimination against
them, since it placed IA heavier burden
of taxation on them than was charged
TO regular banking firms which loan
money on securities at rates not ex-
coedlng G per cent. and it was freely
charged that the special tax was i'm
posed not for purposes of revenue, but
10 run the loan sharks" out of busi-
ness. and appeal was therefore entered
the case having made Its way leisurely
through the courts for years. until 1t
row seems within sight OF final de-
cision. If the city wins 1t will secure
a considerable sum in back taxes. and
the right to impose such special license
faxes will be clearly indicated.