Joseph McKenna

“ The duty of a city to especially illuminate a place where an object is, or to put a policeman on guard by it to warn pedestrians, depends upon the object being an unlawful obstruction.
The plaintiff in error can claim nothing from the general duty of the city under the statute to light the streets. ”

“ The first contention of plaintiff in error is that the stone was an unlawful obstruction per se. This is deduced as a consequence from § 222 of the Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia, which reads as follows:
'No open space, public reservation, or other public ground in the city of Washington, nor any portion of the public streets or avenues in said city, shall be occupied by any private person or for any private purpose whatever.'
This section cannot be construed to prohibit putting upon a street any object without regard to its effect on the use of the street. ”

“ The sweeping character of such a construction need not be pointed out. There are objects which subserve the use of streets, and cannot be considered obstructions to them, although some portion of their apace may be occupied. ”