National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-04-08

The Chairman Let US have those resolu-
| tons.
The Witness. will read them if it is the
| pleasure Of the COMMITTEES TO hear them.
The witness then read SIS follows.
Whereas we, the property holders residing along
the line of East Capitol street and the proposed
extension Of the Metropolitan street railway, feel
| Il inoumbent upon ourselves to encourage an en-
terprise which Is obviously 20 the interest OF our
beautiful thoroughfarer and are unwilling to be
IegsFdsd IN the Igh. of opposing
peculiar benefits and render certain the develop
ment and identifying Of our street, but will con-
s[ Immense Sdtyantsgss upon the citizen: and tho
ident and officers Of the Metropolitan street rail-
way have shown their willingness to cooperate,
ana have incurred considerable expense toward
the accomplishment OF; this desired improvement:
Resoiued, That while there are differences of
opinion as TO the amount OF the special assess
ments recently made by the Board of Public
WORKS for improvements on East Capitol street,
yet In 90 far as relates to the manner in which
such assessments were made IN respect to the Me-
tropoltaa Railroad Company, we sequiesee In
ResoIped, That In common with the citisens Of
the eastern section or the city, whose wishes in
this matter have been so fully pronounced, We
earnestly and respectfully urge upon the officers
constructing and putting in operation the eastern
extension OF said road 49,. ...
the president of the Metropolitan street railway
be furnished with copy OF these resolutions, eI-
pressiye Of the wishes Of this meeting.
Z. s. FRRDERICKs.
President of Meeting.
~ Secretary.
A true copy:
w E CREARY
Chairman Committee on Resolutions.
WASHINGTON, December q, Is72
That was done because we refused to lay the
rails. We explained to them that we could
not do it. We showed them the figures, and
they were satisfied that we could not. With
view, therefore, of getting public expression
on the part of those living along East Capitol
street, in regard to the matter, a public meet
ing was called, and the resolutions have read
were adopted as the sense of the meeting.
By Mr.. Thurman: Q. Is the charter of your
road granted by Congressl A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does the charter make any provision as
to whether the company shall bear any part of
the expense of paving or notl A. No, sir;
neither that or the organic act. The organic
act says, think, that One-third is to be charged
to the citizens along each side and two
thirds to the city proper.
@. Is there any act of the Legislature on the
subject A. None whatever.
Q. Any order of the Board of Public Worksi
A. Requiring US to payl
Q. Yes, sir. A. None that have received.
By Mr.. Stewart: Q. Is not there an act of
track A. Yes, sir; we are required to keep
the road well paved and In good order, but
there is no provision in the charter that we
shall be compelled to pave our road. We are
required to keep our road well paved and in
good order.
Q. Have you that herci A. Yes, sir.
By Mr.. Thurman: Q. That relates to the
spaces between the tracks?. A. 1t relstes to
eighteen feet.
Q. Just read that, please.
The witness read as follows:
rSeo 8. That the said railway sha II De
laid with rails of the most approved
patterns to be determined by the Secretary of the
Interior laid upon an even surface with the pave
ment Of the street.
Sec. e. That the said corporation hereby created
shall be bound 10 keep said tracks, and for the
space Of two feet beyond the outer rail thereof,
times well paved and in good order, without ex.
pense to the United States or to the city of WASH
tngton.
will now read section S, toward the lat
ter end of it. 1 need not read the whole of it;
will read only such portion as refers to this
subject:
Sec. S. . And in such an event It shall
be the duty of said company to change their rail-
road SO as to conform to such grade and pave
ment
BY Mr. Mattingly: Q. In this connection do
you knog of q suit instituted by the Board of
Public Works against the Washington and
Georgetown Railroad Company to test this |
very question: A. Yes, sir. l think the case |
has now gone to the Supreme Court of the Dis
trct. g. ~
Q. How was it decided by the court below9
A. As near as my recollection serves mel did |
not pay much attention to tit was decided |
in favor of the railroad company.
By the Chairman: Q. Are you keeping in re-
pair this space of Is feet on your line Of road
nowl A. We consider that to be our duty to |
keep such in repair.
@. You do that A. Yes, sir.
Q. On your new eXtensionl A. Yes, sir, as |
on the old portion. That will be as much, if |
not more, than any railroad here in, this city |
can do. If we have to renew every four or six |
years the wooden or concrete pavements 1t will |
be as much as any railroad company ought to
be called upon to do.
Q. l do not exactly understand how you |
claimed that your road is to be exempted from |
paving between your rails and two feet on the
outsidei
Witness. 1 would rather not argue that case
with the chairman. want to make myself
Q. You say that matter is in litigation nova
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Has the Board of Public Works instituted
suit, or the company A. The Board of Public
Works insisted upon laying the pavement, and
the company resisted it; and the question was
carried to the court.
Mr.. Mattingly. It was decided against the
board by the local court here in general term;
but the parties have taken an appeal, l believe,
10 the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr.. Stewart. Have you got the syllabus Of
decision?
Mr.. Mattingly. have not here. 1 can get 1t
very readily.
Mr.. Stewart. What was the question, theni
Mr.. Mattingly. The board, as l understand
Il, undertook TO pave between the tracks, with
The intention of having the company pay for it.
The company filed a bill to enjoin them; and
the question came up as to whether they were
not compelled to pave between the tracks-to
lay pavement that corresponded with that on
either side, and the court decided the company
was not.
By Mr.. Stewart: Q. Did the court decide It
was not bound TO put pavement there at ala
A. ! was not in that case. Mr.. Cook Is here, |
who was in the case, and he can give the COM
mittee all the Information that they desire on
the subject.
Mr.. Wilson. You are stating'to US what the
court decided. What want to know is this:
Did the court decide that the company was not
bound to pave between the tracks, or that the
company was not bound TO use the same kind
Of pavement between the track that the city put
down outside Of the trackl
Mr.. Mattingly. / have only q general i'm
preston on my mind as to the current history
Of the case at the time it occurred. Mr.. Cook,
as say, is present, and he can give you all the
yOu uCblIC vi IuC buDJCCIs
By Mr.. Stewart: Q. What was the point, Mr..
Cook, decided therel
Mr.. Cook. The question referred to the
material which should be laid between the
tracks.
Mr.. Wilson. suppose 50.
Mr.. Cook. The road maintained they were
not bound to conform to the track of the other
road in regard to the material adopted by the
local authorities. Then an injunction was had,
and In the court below It was decided against
the local government; against the District. An
appeal was taken, and 1t was argued before
four judges above. They were equally divided.
Judge Cartier and Judge Macarthur held that
the road was bound to conform, while Judge
DIN and Judge Humphreys (the latterof whom
gave the dicision below held the contrary. By
our act We are entitled to re-argument in case
the first hearing Is simply before four judges
We are entitled then 70 re-argument before the
Eve, If 1t is desired. There being an equal d.
Vision, made motion to have rehearing Of
he case, and such motion was allowed. The
,aseis pending, undecided, in the general term.
Mr.. Wilson. There has been no decision
hen, of any court TO the effect that the rail
road is not bound to payi
Mr.. Cook. Except by the one judge below,
n equity, from which decision an appeal has
been prayed.
Mr.Wilson. Was that decision to the effect