Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-11-14
THE DISTRICT VS.. THE STREET
RAILROADS.

Attorney Riddles Statement OF the
Case.
The following is the full text OF Mr.. Riddles
statement Of this matter heretofore briefly referred
to in THE STAR:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT I
OF CoLUMBh,5
WASHINGTON, October 81, 1881.
Gentlemen: In compliance with your request to
restate the positions, advice and action OF this
office upon the interesting claims OF the District
vs. the Washington and Georgetown street rail-
road company, the Metropolitan and the Columbia
companies, for work done by the old Board OF
Public Works, several years ago under the provi-
s1ons OF the companies several charters, and OF
the act Of February 21st 1871, August 10th, 1871,
and May 18th, 1873, beg leave to say: The claim
OF the District upon the companies rested upon
totally different grounds from its claim upon the
owners OF property abutting on an improved
street. In this last case an assessment under the
law as 1t was, Of one sixth, was made, and the
owner notified, and If at the end OF thirty days he
did not pay, certificate OF Indebtedness was issued
and sold, or placed in the hands OF the sinking
fund commissioner. A railroad track is in no sense
property thus AUDITING could it be assessed.
Its charter makes it the duty Of the corporation
70 pave the entire space between two lines drawn
along its track two feet beyond the outer rails In
The instances OF the companies named they did not
DO this work, and the board OF public works was
obliged to do it, and when 1t was done the board
the companies, but to the owners OF the real es-
tate abutting on the various streets and avenues,
On revision OF these assessments made this cost OF
paving the space chargeable to the railroad COM
panieS was deducted from the assessments
upon adjoining property and charged to the
been. AS the law then STOOD and Still
does, SO far as this work is concerned, there was
and Is power by which it could be regularly as
sessed on the railroads and their property sold;
nor could certificates OF Indebtedness be issued
against them. There no law for that This
WAS my advice, and this We the view OF the House
committee On the District OF Columbia, and that
committee called on these corporations nearly two
years ago to make up agreed cases with the Dis
trict and have them tried. l spent many months
in trying to accomplish this object, and failing,
commenced suits against each OF the railroad COM
panies to collect these claims. This was done a
Term, and will, as expect, be tried at the present
term. The lawyers OF the District committee, as
is seen, accepted and acted upon this construction
OF the law as the correct enc. When the act OF
June II, 1873, for the permanent form Of the
District government was before Congress, the con-
dition OF the law upon this matter was brought to
its notice, and it Incorporated into the 9Th section
provision by which, II a railroad company now
neglectS to pave its proportion OF street, the Dis
trict should do it and the cost the rail-
road and II not paid, issue certificate OF 1ndebt-
edness and sell It; and if then not paid within q
year, the railroad property may be sold, thus pac
land OF adjoining owners; for It is to be reneIn-
bered that the cost OF improving streets is now
charged upon no other property than that OF street
railroad companies running along them. The
main costs row paid from the general fund On
appropriation by Congress. Respectfully,
A. G. RIDDLE Attorney, d. C.
TO the e. S. Commissioners, ID. G.