Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-11-12
THE DISTRICT VS.. THE STREET
RAILROADS.
Attorney Riddles Statement OF the
Case.

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
or CoLUNBfA,f
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-
sions OF the companies several charters, and OF
the act of February 2lst 1871, August 10Th, 1871,
and May 29th, 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 it was, Of one sixth, was made, and the
owner notified, and II 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
property thus abuttng nor could It be assessed.
Its charter makes it the duty OF the corporation
10 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
90 this work, ana the board Of public works was
obliged to do it, and when 1t was done the board
charged it errcnecEsly With the other costs, not to
tate aOutting on the various streets and avenues.
On revision OF these assessments made this cost OF
paving The space chaIgeable to the railroad CON-
pantes was deducted from the assessments
upon adjoining property and charged to the
railroads respectively, as it should have
been. AS the law then stood, and still
docs, so far this work is concerned. there was
and Is no power by which it could be regularly as
Se5Sed on the railroads and their property sold;
nor could certificates OF Indebtedness be issued
against them. There was no law for that. This
was my advice, and this was 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
trItt and have them tried. l spent many months
in trying to accomplish this object, and failing, I
commenced suits against each OF the railroad COM
paliicS to collect these claims This was done a
year ago. and they are now pending III the Gel. raj
Term. ana viii. rs expect, be tried at pr -ent
term The lawyers Of the District committee, as
is seen, accepted and acted upon this construction
O. the law as the correct one. When the act CT
June IL, 1873, for the permanent form OF the
District government YVES before Congress. the con-
dlton of the law upon this matter was brought to
Its notice, and it Incorporated into the 5th section
a provision by which, If a railroad company now
rejects to pave its proportion OF street, the Dis
trict should do it and assess the cost on the rail-
road and If not paid, issue certificate Of indebt
year. the railroad property may be sold, thus pac-
ing il on the same ground was formerly the
land OF adjoining oWn"rs; for it is to be remem-
bered that the cost OF improving streets is now
charged upon no other property than tn OF street
faliroiN Companies running along item The
main costs are now paid from the general fund On
appropriation by Congress Respectfully,
A. u. RIDDLE, Attorney, ID. G.
To the e. S. Commissioners, d. G.