Show ELECTRIC CARS MAY RUN jan 10 judge zane rendered the the following opinion in the telephone street railway suit refusing to grant the injunction asked for by the telephone company utah territory third judicial otal die district december tern term 1889 the rocky mountain bell telephone company vs the salt lake city railroad company ZANE judge this is 18 an a application lica 1 to the court by the vo rocky mountain bell telephone company for an injunction restraining the salt lake city ally railroad company from the use of an electric current by the devices it now employs as a motive power to propel its cars on the streets mentioned in the complaint in 1880 A J co placed their telephone poles and wires in the streets under an express license from the city and in 1883 that company transferred all its rights with respect to the telephone so far as it legally could to the plain plaintiff tift and the latter has occupied the streets with its poles and wires ever since and in 1887 the plaintiff moved its line of poles on first south street from the side to te the centre of the street by the permission of the chy and alad in may 1889 it removed its line on south temple from the side to the centre of that street by a similar permission and as changed has continued to use hse both lines the defendant insists that such continued occupation of the streets by the plaintiff is 18 unlawful because it never obtained a license from the city to do so BO in view of the fact that the city has the control of the ts subject to the right of the public to use them as a highway and of the fact that the plaintiff has continued to occupy them since the transfer without objection by the city and in view of the further facts that on two occasions since the plaintiff became the owner of the telephone the city gave its consent to the rem removal olval of the poles and wires from the sides of two of the streets to their een centers its consent will be presumed u until I 1 an objection is beird beard be ird from it the defendant was incorporated in 1872 under an act authorizing the incorporation of railroad companies and the purpose of the incorporation mentioned in its articles was to construct own maintain and operate a street railroad for carrying passengers within the corporate limits of salt dalt lake city and inasmuch as electricity for the propulsion of cats cars was not then in use the plaintiff insists that the defendant was not authorized to employ it as a moti motive ve power in the operation of its railroad the authority to operate the road without mentioning any particular power to be used in of so doing authorized the employment cf any safe and appropriate force then in use or that might be brought under human control by new inventions vent ions and employed for such a purpose the plaintiff is using the electric current to transmit speech on wires strung on poles set in the same game street in which the defendant is using a more potent current upon wires strung on other poles for the propulsion of street cars the trolly wire of the street car is seventeen feet from the ground and the feed wire fourteen inches higher an ordinance of the city requires the telephone wires to be as much as thirty feet high in places they are that high but in other places they are botand for the distance of almost forty rods they are but toree three feet and six inches above the feed wire of the defendant the plaintiff uses the ground circuit and the defendant uses the rails with wire connections at their joints to complete its circuit but they are so conne connected eted with the ground that an earth distribution occurs with the speech conveyed by the plaintiffs plaintiff s current enough of of p the noise made by the in its ita operations often renders the ears of the plaintiffs subscribers bers to impede and confuse the understanding and in some instances to prevent communication it also appears from the evidence that the often fall and the bells give false calls and on one or two occasions telephone instruments at the central office were burned out causing considerable sid erable damage the operation cooperation co of the human tongue the electric current and the human ear in communicating thought from mind to mind is one of the latest and most difficult achievements of human ingenuity in this communication the electric cui current rent becomes a most sensitive i bensi tive and delicate agent and to perform perfect work it must be free from all disturbance all other currents must murt be excluded not so 80 with ath the electric current employed for the propulsion of cars or the current used fur for the production of light it appears from the evidence that the effect upon the telephone instruments and the interference with communication is from two causes induction and conduction and that a variable electrical current on one wire induces another current in a neighboring wire more or less parallel to it this action is termed induction in and that on is communication between two conductors when they are in contact it appears from the evidence that the tele telephone instruments were burned out in consequence of the telephone wire coming in contact with the trolly wire or wheel that the dropping of the was wag from the same cause or from earth distribution and that the noise at the telephone was from both induction and conduction it also appears that the extent of the dis currance cur bance from earth distribution depends upon the distance between the groundings ground ings of the two currents in view of the distance the wires of the respective panties in this case parallel each other the probabilities are that telephoning would not be seriously interfered with from induction if they were placed fifteen feet apart and that it would be slight in comparison with what it now is a if they were separated twelve feet lor the rule is that induction exerted between parallel lines is inversely proportioned to the square of the distance between them and directly proportioned to the distance of exposure the rhe plaintiff says that the evidence shows that ahe defendant could prevent the interference by ado adopting ting the double trolly system and that that system can be successfully used in propelling defendants cars by that system the current returns from the motor under the car by mearis means of a second trolly arm and other devices similar to those upon which it goes out from the dynamo to the motor A preponderance of the evidence shows lows that this system would substantially ly prevent the effects of induction on the telephone wires and also earth distribution and that its adoption by the defendant upon the roads now in use and those projected and in process of construction would cost a large sum while this system may be practicable when employed on a straight road with a double track the probabilities are that its use on a single track with turnouts switches and curvo curdt s would be attended with great difficulty and that it would not be a mechanical or commercial success As the subtle face the parties are using of which so little was knon until a comparatively recent period may be brought under more complete control by the use of better devices or new inventions or greater skill these difficulties may digap pear but the court can consider this case only in the light of the known there is evidence tending to show I 1 hat bat streetcars street cars may be operated by means of the electric battery system buethe but the weight of the evidence goes to prove that the system has not as yet been successful experience has not dot yet demonstrated its entire practicability tic ability as a motive power to operate railroads the most appropriate part of a street upon which to operate a an strict et railway is the center of it the different modes of travel occupy the part indicated by convenience and safety accordingly footmen take the sidewalks siJe walks cars upon a track the center and wagons and other vehicles and horsemen the entire street between the sidewalks except the center when occupied by passing cars the individual on a passing car is a traveler on a public street as the one is who rides alongside in a hack or on the back of a horse an that part of the street occupied by street car travel is as much devoted to public travel as that occupied by travel in vehicles or on horses or on foot it may be more convenient and to the interest of some to go on foot on the sidewalks and more convenient and to 1 lie interest of others to ride in carriages t in the a s reet and more convenient and to the interest of others to ride in street cars the latter is a very cheap and convenient way of trivel travel ani and it would seem reasonable and right that those wishing to go in iii that way should have the leu leo 0 streeta sthreeth are set apart for the people to travel on as their necessities or their ts may suggest the use of a street for that purpose by the instrumentality of a street car is consistent with the object of its dedication while the occupation of a street with telegraph and telephone poles is often permitted such a use can hardly be said to be within the purpose dedication the public safety and convenience require such poles to be set on a line that will not obstruct travel they are usually placed as much as a hundred feet apart along the outer edge of the sidewalk and there they do not interfere with travel A street car line at that place would obstruct the a approach to and communication wit with it buildings on that side of the street but in view of the fact that the use of the electric current on wires at that place may be interfered with by the branches of trees and of the fact that street car tracks near the sidewalks are objectionable the most appropriate line for all such poles is the center of the street unless the use of two or more electric currents in such proximity would render the use of the one or the other controlled and protected by all reasonable mechanical devices impracticable professor amos E dolben in his testimony says that there are various ways way in which the troubles to the telephone may be prevented 11 among them he mentions the mcclure system which consists of a conducting wire stretched parallel with the other telephone wires through districts disturbed by such currents as come from either telegraph or electric light or electric railway works the weight of the evidence is to the effect that this system is a remedy for disturbances from leakage or conduction but somewhat imperfect for disturbances arising from induction with the telephone wires as much as ten feet from the car wires probably this system would 0 prevent all serious disturbance in this city the same witness says the better way is to provide a return conductor for each telephone a complete metallic circuit without contact with the earth this removes interference from that source entirely and as to trouble from induction he hd says when the two wires are near to each other parallel in the air and at an even distance apart any induction action that takes place from a current in a neighboring conductor acts similarly on each wire and therefore they annul each others effect upon the tole telephone abo ne circuit and there will be no practicable disturbance of this last system george W mansfield an electrical engineer of high standing and wide experience says it is the universal sentiment of all telephone people that a perfect system will not be attained until they have a metallic system complete for all their trunk lines and exchanges that all the circuits of the american telegraph and telephone com company are e metallic they use no ground circuits whatever and by means of the metallic circuits they are enabled I 1 to 0 talk from boston to new york PI philadelphia i I 1 buffalo albany and expect e u ultimately irately to reach chicago by y me means ua of the metallic circuit they e 8 uffer suffer absolutely no disturbance from outside influence the change from the present system used in salt lake Ci tyone in which the earth is used as a conductor to complete the circuit to a complete metallic circuit would cost cost a large sum of money but its use would furnish a remedy borall for all interference from electric currents whether from street cars care electric electr light telegraph or earth currents this brings us to the question ought the court while the complainant continues its business as it now is doing without adopting any other devices or means to prevent the injury complained of require the defendant to adopt the double trolly system and in lip the event it does not do so to enjoin it from operating its road by means of the electric current in the light of the evidence the double trolly system appears to be more cumbrous than the single now in use by the defendant and were it employed by the defendant upon its roads with its single track with numerous turnouts swit switches clies and curves its use would probably be attended with annoying delays and loss loom of time to the traveling irig public as well as additional ex expenses noes it is true that the amzi metallic III circuit would be more expensive to the telephone company but it furnishes a more perfect system and service in fact the best that human invention and skill have devised or probably can devise the air and earth are common fields for electric currents and man is not responsible far the action of natural forces effected alone by natural causes but when he takes them in hand by memis means of his skill and his me banicar devices and employs them in his service and amoust arous ts and excites them he does become for them his will than controls action and he be receives the benefit of their labors the plaintiffs right to use the electric current by means of wires upon poles set in the streets was prior in time to the right of the defendant to use the same agency by means of wires and poles in the same streets nevertheless it is the duty of each in the eloy enjoyment ment of its right to use all reasonable care to prevent injury to the other the raw law will protect each in the enjoyment of its right but it will not protect in the negligent enjoyment of it the protection does not include negligence priority in time could not i give the plaintiff any immunity I 1 ram the use of reasonable care it s the duty of every person to employ all reasonable means to protect himself and any valuable right ehlt he be may possess from injury if he wishes kohold to hold any other person responsible for the loss that it causes A in the enjoyment of a valuable right of or property or otherwise about to receive I 1 irreparable are injury from the enjoyment of some other right by another which either might prevent by the use of reasonable means cannot obtain any injunction junction iii restraining the other from the enjoyment of his right until he adopts such reasonable means in ewh a case a party about to be injured holds the remedy in h bis is own hands and the law requires him to use it he can claim nothing on account of his own wrong anybody may enjoin the negligent use of a right by another about to cause irreparable injury to the enjoyment of his own right which lie he has used due care to protect assuming that the use of the metallic circuit would remedy the evil complained of and that its use is equally practicable by either party to this thin action the court will not enjoin enjo jo i n the use of the ground circuit by the defendant while the plain plaintiff tift continues to use it it appears from the preponderance of the evidence that the use of the electric current by the plaintiff is practicable while its adoption by the defendant would bean be an experiment its practicability does not appear to be established the prayer of the complainant for an injunction is denied |