BALTIMORE CITY. 807

(1) USE OF STREETS BY TRACKS, POLES, AND WIRES.

P. L. L. (1888), Art. 4, sec. 819A. 1890. ch. 370. 1914, ch. 859.

To regulate the use of streets, lanes or alleys in said city, by railway
or other tracks, gas or other pipes, telegraph, telephone, electric light or
other wires and poles, in, under, over or upon the same, and to require
all such wires to be placed under ground after such reasonable notice as
it may prescribe. To determine the character of the foundation to be
used under and around the railway ties, and, in any case where a street
is being paved by the Paving Commission or other public agency and the
character of the foundation is not determined by ordinance, the same
shall be determined by the Paving Commission or other public agency
doing such paving, and full power to do so is hereby given. It shall be
the duty of every railroad or street railway corporation occupying with
its tracks any portion of the public highways of Baltimore City to put
in the character of foundation determined upon in pursuance of this
provision.

Ches. & Pot. Tel. Co. v. McKenzie, 74 Md. 47-48. Koch v. North Ave. Ry. Co., 75
Md. 222-229. N. Balto. Pass. Ry. Co. v. N. Ave. Ry. Co , 75 Md. 233. N. Balto. Pass.
Ry. Co. v. Mayor, &c. Balto., 75 Md 247. Lake Rol. R R. Co. v. Baltimore, 77 Md.
380-381. Garrett v. Lake Rol. El. R. R. Co.. 79 Md. 286. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v.
Balto.. 79 Md. 511. Edison Co. v. Hooper, 85 Md. 111. Hooper v. Balto. City Pass.
Ry Co.. 85 Md. 509. Poole v. Falls Rd. Ry. Co., 88 Md. 533. C. & P. Tel. Co. v.
Balto. City. 89 Md. 705. C. & P. Tel. Co. v. Balto. City, 90 Md. 638. Baltimore v.
C. & P. Tel. Co., 92 Md. 692. Balto, v. Balto. Co. W. & Elec. Co., 95 Md. 239. Pur-
nell v. McLane, 98 Md. 594. Simon's Sous v. Md. Tel. & Teleg. Co., 99 Md. 173.

Rule laid down as to extent of city's right to regulate erection of poles in the
streets. City & Suburban Railway Company v. Brush Electric Co., Daily Record.
December 20. 1895.

When action at law is only remedy for injuries to abutting property by the erec-
tion of a pole. Polenk v. Md. Telephone Company, Daily Record, June 13, 1901.

For further decisions relating to use of streets by tracks, poles and wires, see,

N. C. Ry. Co. v. M. & C. C. of Balto., 46 Md. 423. Kirby v. Citizens Ry. Co., 48
Md. 168. Hiss y. Balto. & H. Ry. Co., 52 Md. 242. Hodges v. B. C. P. Ry. Co., 58
Md. 603. Canton Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 79 Md. 432. State ex rel. v. Latrobe, 81
Md. 222. Birch v. Lake Rol. El. R. R. Co., S3 Md. 369. United Rys. Co. v. Hayes,
92 Md. 490. Lonaconing v. Consol. Coal Co., 95 Md. 635. B. & O. R. R. Co v. Balti-
more, 98 Mdl. 536. Consol. Gas Co. v. Balto. Co., 98 Md. 696.

(m) CONDUITS, ELECTRICAL COMMISSION AND RENTALS OF CONDUITS.

1892, ch. 200. P. L. L. (1888), Art. 4, sec. 819B.

To provide a series of conduits under the streets, lanes and alleys of
said city, or any part or parts thereof, for the use of telephone, telegraph,
electric light and other wires, either by constructing said conduits itself
or authorizing their construction by such person or corporation, upon such
terms as may be agreed upon. To appoint an Electrical Commission,
with such powers and duties as it may deem proper or appropriate for
carrying out the aforesaid provisions of this section relating to conduits.
To require all such wires, or any part or parts thereof, and the poles
carrying the same, to be removed from the surface of the streets, lanes
or alleys of said city, or any part or parts thereof, and to require such
wires to be placed in such conduits, all under such penalty as it may pre-