Western Union Telegraph Co. v. City of Richmond

Citations

• 224 U.S. 160
• 32 S. Ct. 449
• 56 L. Ed. 710
• 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2291

Syllabus

<p>A municipal ordinance will not be held unconstitutional as an unreasonable grant of power because it permits the use of streets by a public service corporation only in such manner as is satisfactory to the municipal officers in charge of such streets; and so held that an ordinance of the City of Richmond, Virginia, in regard to location and construction of telegraph wires and conduits did not deprive telegraph companies of their property without due process of law.</p> <p>The act of July 24,1866,14 Stat. 221, c. 230, permitting telegraph companies to occupy post-roads is permissive only and not a source of positive rights; it conveys no title in streets or roads, and does not found one by delegating the power to take by eminent domain. West. tin. Tel. Co. v. Penna. R. R. Co., 195 U. S. 540.</p> <p>Prima facie a telegraph company, not having the right of eminent domain, must submit to the terms of the owners of property which it desires to occupy, including those imposed by municipalities for use of streets.</p> <p>Qucere: Whether by reason of such rights as are given by the act of July 24,1866, a municipality is restricted to only imposing reasonable . terms for the use of its streets by telegraph companies.</p> <p>It is not unreasonable for a municipality to require as compensation for the use of its streets by telegraph companies a money charge, in this case of two dollars for each pole, and also the right to string a limited number of wires on its poles or to use one of the pipes in the conduit for municipal service; or to require space to be left in conduits for use of third parties on compensation and permission by the city.</p> <p>The court must assume that a municipality acts within its powers, if it can be authorized to do what it has done.</p> <p>Charges for use of streets acquiesced in and paid for many years without complaint, will not be declared unreasonable on mere protest. Where, as in this case, the provisions imposing penalties for noncompliance