The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1914-05-18
A,oh Courts Ruling in Telephone
Case Differs From sloan's
Findings In keo-
kuk Case.
RIGHT TO PASS LAWS
Ecopv Of This Finding Will be At
/ tached to Papers Now in
Z Judge McPherson's
Hands.

irene court made in the case Of the
EAST Boyer Telephone company
against the town OF Vail will be of
| benefit to the local telephone case, it
as believed by some of the attorneys
FIR the city OF Keokuk. The court
decision holds that the company has
no right to occupy the streets with
out franchise. It also holds that the
city has the power to pass certain
regulations.
B In his decision last December,
'sudge Sloan held that the city Of Keo-
ikuk had no right to pass certain or
f,inarces which were passed in 1888
and 1893. And he held that 1t was,
not in the power Of the city to pro-
hibit the company from using certain
streets, or to require franchises af-
ter the first grant had been made.
The decision OF the Iowa court will
be secured as soon as possible and
will be made supplement to the pa
pers in the telephone case now in the
hands Of Judge Mcpherson.
Il. Difference in Issues.
One difference In the cases is
that the town of Vail had not allowed
the company on its streets in the
first place. Major w. B. Collins, one
of the attorneys for the city of Keo-
kuk in the case against the Iowa
Telephone company said that this
last decision tended to clear up GER
tain points in regard to franchises
and the passing of laws.
Following is part of the opinion
from the high court. This is the
. third time it has come before that
tribunal:
Referring to its former opinion the
court said: It was stated that the
question presented was whether a
telephone company has right, under
the law Of the state to construct and
operate its lines in and through the
streets of a city or town, and main
tain local system for the transac-
ton of general telephone business in
such city or town, without procuring
from the municipal corporation. IL
cense for the use Of the streets. 1t
was held that the telephone company
has no such right"
presented at the third appeal was
substantially the same as at the previ-
Gus hearing. The opinion says:
Can be Regulated.
ut is we'll settled that telephone
and telegraph companies are subject
to all regulations falling properly
within the police powers of the state
or of municipal CORPORATION.
The use and control of it's public
streets is admitted matter of police
regulation by the municipality, or the
voters, If the ultimate voice is lodged
in them, may determine to what pri-
vate uses the streets may be put, gov
erned as we must presume they will
be by the test as to whether permit
ting such private use, the right of pub
lie enjoyment and use would be i'm.
paired
The right to use the streets of a
municipal corporation for private
or quasi public purpose is not under
our laws an absolute one. The tele-
phone company in this case has been
deprived OF no right which 1t ever
possessed, but, on the contrary, had
come within the restrictions which
We're authorized. At most. it has been
denied a privilege. not right. and
that the privilege may have been
granted to another does not conflict
with the constitutional provision.
Not Denial Of Right.
In the exercise of the police pow.
er the grant Of the privilege to one,
TO, the possible exclusion Of others, OF
the refusal Of privilege to exercise
calling or employment lawful in It
self, is not essentially denial of
right Or repugnant to the constitn
ton, state or federal, and following
the rule so often announced by this
court that law will not be held to
be unconstitutional unless 1t appears
clearly to be within the prohibition OF
the organic law"
Refused TO Take a Dare.