| Show TAXING THE POLES the city council is ia preparing to place an aniual an u ual tax 0 i the street poles used b by the western union telegraph and mountain bell telephone oom companies panier the proposition as aa it stands now BOW la Is that the chief local representative of each of the companies named chaij J during the month of july file with the collector a statement in writing under oath specifying the number of telegraph or telephone poles in use by his company on the lot day of july of eald year and said company shall at the rame name time pay to the collector br the use of the city the sum of 5 for each and every pole so BO shown tor for the year then commencing on the ast 1st at day of july the salt liiko council by pursuing this course to is following in the wako wake of st lauis lauie which passed such an ordinance in 1884 which provided that affer that time all telegraph and telephone companies which are not by ordinance taxed on their grow gross income for city purposes shall pay to the city of st louis for tae atte privilege of using the streets allays and public altoes thereof the sum of 5 per annum for each and every telegraph and telephone pole elected or used by them in the streets alloys allays and public places of 0 said bald city the western telegraph company contested the legality of this ordinance and the district court found against them whereupon an appeal was taken to the supreme court of the he united states which on march ath of this year used these words A city has the right to charge a telegraph company for the use of its streets and public places for telegraph poles erected ther therein etu ap also no one would suppose that a franchise from the federal government to a corporation state or national to construct interstate roads or lines of travel transportation or communication would authorize it to enter upon the private property of an individual and appropriate it without compensation no matter how bow broad and comprehensive might be the ibe times in which the franchise was granted it boull be confessedly subordinate to the right of the individual not to be deprived ol of his property without with ut just comment compensation a and the be principle is the same when under the grant of a franchise from the national government a corporation po ration assumes to enter upon prop erty of a public nature belonging to a state it would not be claimed claim dd for instance that under a franchise from congress to construct and operate an interstate rat railroad broad the grant grante e thereof bouli enter upon the state stata house grounds of the state elate and construct its depot there without paying the value of the property thus appropriated although the state house grounds be property to the public uses of the state and property whose ownership and control is nut within the competency of the national government to dispo seas the state of such control and use or appropriate the same to its own benefit or the benefit of ay of its ais corporations po rations without suitable auit able campen ballon to the state this rule extends to streets and highways highway they are the public property of the state while tor for purposes of travel and common use uee they are open to the citi citizens of every state alike and no state can by its ito legislation deprive the citizens of another state of such common use yet when an appropriation of auy any part of i this public property to an exclusive use is sought whether by a citizen oi 01 a corporation of the same or another state or a corporation of the national government within the competency ol of the state representing the sovereignty ot of that local public to exact for its benefit campens atlon for thir tah exclusive appropriation it matters not for what that exclusive appropriation is taken whether for steam railroads or street railroads telegraphs or telephones the state may ii it chooses exact from the party or corporation given such exclusive pecuniary compensation to the general public for being deprived of the common use of the portion taua appropriated the court cannot assume that the charge is excessive and so excessive as to make the ordinance unreasonable and void lor for as SL applied in certain oases cases alike charge fur for so much appropriation of the streets may be reasonable if within a few blocks of wall york the telegraph company aboudi place on the public streets 1600 1500 of its large poles pol 8 it woul i seem as though no court coull re that 5 a poll pol j was excessive annual rental on the other hand a charge for a like number of poles in a small villages village where space is abundant and land of little value woul i i be manifestly unreasonable and might be so excessive as to be void indeed it may be observed in the line ol 01 thought heretofore expressed that mis inis charge is in the nature of a rental that the occupation of the streets can be denied by the city 10 the councilmen who favor the taxing of the poles of the telegraph and telephone companies think they will have little difficulty in coming off victorious in the face of this opinion by the united states supreme court bourt |
