i84 TII£: POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



tage to himself or the pole, but " the fourth dimension " is not as yet 

 a demonstrated fact, and without it the space occupied by the poles is 

 withdrawn from the public use. The fact that sufficient space re- 

 mains for public traffic is immaterial.* The public use of the streets 

 is therefore disturbed and inconvenienced, or, in other words, is in- 

 commoded. This, unfortunately, is not the full extent of the disturb- 

 ance. To illustrate: 



That man should be protected in the enjoyment of life, limb, and 

 property is recognized in every system of law. That the fire depart- 

 ment is a potent instrument in such protection goes without saying. 

 That its occupancy of the streets, with its paraphernalia of safety and 

 protection, is a proper public use of the streets, none will gainsay ; and 

 that the fullest facilities should be afforded it for the untrammeled 

 exercise of its protective powers is self-evident. Now, a New York 

 city fire-department official recently stated that the firemen are delayed 

 at almost every fire in raising ladders by the wires which are strung 

 in front of the houses. He considers them a very serious obstruction, 

 and adds that if there were no telegraph-wires strung through the 

 streets the fire department could raise a much longer ladder than they 

 do at present. Serious difficulty, he continued, is met with in fighting 

 fires from the outside of buildings, on account of the wires, which 

 make a net-work in front so strong that it is impossible to force the 

 water through it. Poles, too, are in some instances placed so close to 

 hydrants as to interfere with the firemen's work. This being so, how 

 can it be denied that the public use — and a very important public use 

 — of the streets is seriously interfered with and incommoded ? Must it 

 not, then, be admitted that, measured by one of the tests of legality, 

 the overground system falls short of the requirements necessary to 

 bring it within the pale of protective legislation, and must still be ad- 

 judged an unlegalized public nuisance ? 



How does it stand the other test prescribed by the Legislature ? 

 Are poles and over-ground wires necessary fixtures in cities? The 

 companies contend that the statutes expressly authorize the erection 

 of posts and wires. Is this so ? The act of 1848 (which, if not sup- 

 planted by the act of 1853, is the only one which refers to posts) 

 authorized the erection of the necessary fixtures, including posts, piers, 

 or abutments. The only permission given is to erect such fixtures, 

 including posts, piers, or abutments, as are necessary. Only by doing 

 violence to the English language can the words be interpreted other- 

 wise. The construction placed upon them by the companies, followed 

 out, leads to an absurdity. If, as they claim, there is unlimited author- 

 ity to erect poles in the streets whether necessary or not, there is ex- 

 actly the same authority to erect, in the streets^ piers and abutments. 

 But it is plain that such erections were never intended to be made in the 

 streets, and no company would claim it. The fallacy lies in confound- 

 * Allen's " Telegraph Cases," p. 180. 



