Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-01-14
vhe District Crni.,rs sgaiust the Street
Railroads.

THETR LEGAL HISTORY BY ATTORNEY RIDDLE
In compliance with a request OF the District
Commissioners. Attorney Riddle has transmitted a
rsst Element OF thc legal history OF the claims of
the District against the ashingt0n AMI George
town Railroad Company. the Metropolitan Rail-
rOad COmDiny, and the Columbia Railroad Com
psny for the costs OF repairing that portion OF the
streets and avenues occupied by them seyeraliy,
which by their charters, rs construed, they were
liable TO pave and Keep in repair. He says: The
charter o. the " t-iiHgtOn and GCOTg town Rall-
TUld Company is found ia Il Stat, ssS8 and sec
tons tp-oviS.), 4, and imposes tAe a1ty' the
charter Of The Metropolitan, SCI IL Stat. I'D, same
saCti0ns Tor charter Oh the Columbia sec 10 Stat,
Ii Sect Oh ap1 q.
''In the genera enterprise OF Improving the
streets ny the late board or public works, be-
tween March, 1871, AMI june 20. 1871, the streets
occunief by the companies were mostly improved
and paved
'.The work was not done by the Commissioners,
uHetf Gielr ch1rt@I2, &bi had 70 DC uChS
D. the District under the 3 action OF the act OF
Pabr1ary q, 1871. Is = Is 80 Ire act Of ADJUST
10 1871 Laws OF DiStr ct, LIST session, p. 81. and OF
May 20, 1913, 81 seo,. on. p. - The DUTY was
in 1rcd on the COIppaul - 80 ills Tor& 10y their
Charters 1hty t'JhI4- tiiettf Tie acLS list re-
fCr-c. TO- the District % Gerry out its scheme OF
announcements, u = obliged u do the work. 1T
Will be sen That ti- 'ntTLero furnish no remedy
against the CeLTs H.tS ior THIS r uSlL It VII
also DC seer Oh II tarrP are 10 provisions OF law
By which til DfS+ 4 { doing this work could as
seSS the companies am cI"ct IS assessments nor
could it Issue assessment certificates CeTtiti-
cats OF u-'Ctte-jnc- AGAINST III r. property. This
II, 1873, - SJtts. in3. The act OF June
-. 1874. ~ stats. 116, section 6, created a
boaui Of audit, and Cnioiued upon it the
special duty Of reporting TO Congress the
amount Gue the III tri't on account Of the
rl.- :. iS-5. meFnh'~ ~ the first hoard OF Con-
nss~i"f"rs 81 that time supp0-ed that Congress
b-i3,I iu'61ie ,Gj tsre action ia The premises.
and lU lites. tln result. None vas hdG. and as
ar.,ears in ISL the Commissioners referred the
OC"Stt N TO their at. Grncy. who Fed thHt the Dis
tr'rt was without remedy in the promises; but
IA - Es7 IL
TO2.-5, eouIi In 40 event be east upon abuttns
IT pity owners 6 q his npinio7) n January,
1890 the SHn@te called on the Commissioners for n
report ~ 10 thnlT claims. This matt WAS brought
u Lhe posge OF the District committee oI the
House uITinS the session or the last Congress,
Who cIslHd The Officers O, TIE comp mics before
them. and IN undermining was had between
them ana tEe Commissioners tnat amcable cases
Iii be made up aud submitted To the Supreme
Court O. the District ana thg mtttarS SGju1cltCd.
II was not uutil that tin- Tat became aware Of
tEn cv=ta7-p 81 these claims as still SubsiStiug
Tire agreement 10 make up cases was not reduced
81 writing, nor were the counsel Of the companies
and district present when it WAS made before the
committee When advised OF this action drew
NJ 81 3tsmCntS OF the cases ami applied 70 the sew
eraI attorneys or the railroads to iJin in making ND
the pruttus5d cases. Several months lTJm March.
ln, were .Futt;tSS'y spent n JEaS eaGtaF0r, When
l sc-Ttl mel tn t IL the purpose Of the rail-
T0GdS To plead the statute Of hfltt0tCnS to the
cieimS Of The District then, November %, 1880,
cnGmenCeti a suit az inst EACH aud they scycrally
Stand the docket. Sos. - S5a - as and -, 49,
e. IS {: a. INST the Washington AMI Georgetown
R-ilCOad company Tor s3Goi966; against tII. Metro
pCtt IN R1iiT01d company, Sl53zI6 Is; against the
Columbia Railroad company. S1O,2ji47- To my
dtCi ITit,O1S the - .SalU-tOn and Georgetown
Railroad company ana the metropolitan Railroad
company SayeTtIly plead nOn-iniebtedneSs, and
TIE tItuta OF limit jtGnS by the act OF Maryland OF
11l5. TIE COlumUi5, under arrangement, stands
without iSSue awaiting the settlement OF the law
guestiOaS involved IN al three eases. To the pleas
OF tse oS 5tutoS OF limit tons ] denurTc1 ana the
cases were sent u tie General Term 1OT hearing
under the lswS OF the District
They were heard as soon rs reached, and on
elaborate argument the General Term unani-
mJu1Iy dcC.igd tnat t.i2 pleas OF the statute OF
limitations were bad As lad dGEUrred 10 these
foundation o. nv cases. and COntended that they
were not liable under their charters, and that no
rigl.J existed on the part o. the District To main
Tain these suits The court sustained our claim
on every material point Judge HaCnnr delivered
The opinion, which " : learned exhaustive. and
u as satisfactory. The case goes 10 a jury,
EbtTC one or TWO troublesome questions Of IA Z
AMI consequent law lHIy yet await u,
l arr hopeful / found. when ] made up these
cases that the board Ot public works had issued
anu SOLD certificates OF Assessments against tae
Washington and GcOgZetrOn railroad company,
AMI while these are void at law, inasmucA as the
District had realized ON them, | thou hit they
ought to be held equitable assignments OF the
clstlin vi the District " what they purFOrted 10
cover. | am now inclined 10 amend that declara-
Ton, AMI claim the whole sum. l think that the
RItcr thing | believe that my cum-niIDi cation OF
October 81, ISL COvtTS all this matter except the
trial o. the cases AMI the paragraph following It,
DIt 10 enable you To answer the request OF the
Scnat, thought II better 10 give connected re-
Sumo or the whole matter in one communication