The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-01-16


Richmond and the Western Union
the lons pending litigation involving
the right of the company to maintain.
poles and wires on tne streets of this
city. in defiance of the local authori-
ties, have been abandoned, and the
case VIII come UP for final argument
before the U"lted states Supreme
Court about the end OF February or
the LIST of March. he brief of the
city Is being prepared and viii shortly
be ordered printed by City Attorney
Henry II. Pollard. Meanwhile n pro-
risional agreement between the city
and the company In regard to the en-
tension of Its call bell system has
been withdrawn, and the company
given summary orders TO remove It's
call uclls from the new Travellers
Building. ins,allcd under that pro-
vis.onnl agreement. and to make no
further extensions pending a final set
tlcment
Pending for Nearly n Year.
Negotiations for a settlement out OF
court have been pending for the past
nine months. but the attorneys for the
company have so constnEtly increased
their demands, and 80 generally in
sisted on provisions which It was most
improbable that the city could accept
that the City Attorney finally became
convinced that there was no genuine
desire for a settlement. but that the
whole effort was to SO delay the pro-
cecdinss by holding out the constant
hope OF a settlement. that the brief
could not be prepared and the case
argued at this term OF the Supreme
Coure. which would mean it's beng
placed at the bottom of the docket,
and being passed by. probably for
years, allowing the nompany 10 con-
tInuc indefinitely It's operation here in
defiance OF city ordinances.
On December S, 1903. the city of
Richmond adopted what Is known as
the Underground ordinance" requlr-
Ing all electric wires. save trolley
wires on certain streets and In a GER
tain congcsted section OF the city. to-
be placed underground. In conduIts
satisfactory to the Committee on
Streets
The Bell Telephone Company at frs,
contested this ordinance. but Just be-
fore a final decision was due. it yolun-
tarily withdrew tho suit paid all costs
of the litigation and accepted from the
city franchise for term of years
which specified that certain portions OF
its construction should be underground
and as n matter Of fact the telephone
Company has since greately c>tended
Its underground service. even beyond
the confines specified by city ordinance
Con Upheld City.
The Western Union brought :njunc.
ton proceedings In 1904 In the United
States courts to prevent the city OF
Richmond from Interfering in any way
with It's lines of poles and wires or
Broad Street, and "A number OF other
streets. laying great stress on the al
legation that they were post routes
used for military purposes OF the gov.
eminent rs well as for commercial
uses. The case took its leisureIy way
being finally argued by Judge Nathan
Goff. United States circuit Judge for
the Fourth Circuit. who. on December
0. 1909. handed down an extended writ.
ten opinion, refusing the injunction
and absolutely UNFOLDING the city.
contention. The company appealed tc
the United States Supreme Court
In Judge Goff's opinion G7S Federal
Reporter. page 3l0) is set forth tina,
tho city ordinance of December Is
1903 requires complainant to not only
60 underground with It's wires alone
the streets and alleys of the under.
ground territory of the city. but alsc
requires II to build conduits. not OF !,
character satisfactory to complaiaants
nor adequate to its purposes, but sat
isactory to the Committee on Streets
lnt Telegraph company Cunning that
this was In direct contraventior of al
act of Congress July "a, 1866. in re.
gard TO post roads.
Judge Golf concludes his opinion:
1T may not be improper In this con-
Eection TO notice that | find from the
record. that the complainant uncom-
plainingly paid this charge Ca tax OF
each poll in the city Streets, for over
, twenty years preceding the institution,
/ - y g.. .,,it nd , ~
such acquiescence should, unless othe,
reasons than those assigned exist
stop II from complaining now SO far
at least as such charge Is concerned.
my conclusion is that complainant
has not been deprived of any OF the
rights to which II is entitled under the
laws and Constitution OF the United
States. and that no unreasonable rates
and regulations have been provided by
the ordinance complained of or by any
OF Its sections. for conducting the bust.