National Republican., 1883-10-11

the present strike has been tho hrst in the
history Of the company.
By reference TO the district tax ledgers we
find that the Washington and Georgetown
hallway company has accumulated some
valuable property. In Georgetown it owns
lots 43, A, As, 6, 8, and 10, square 80, assessed
at 21,O63 with improvements valued at
$4,000, making q total valuation of $1O1 ,063
In Washington the following property ap-
pears in the name Of the corporation Lots
ID, 10, subdivision 80 81, and 32, square 23i !;
all of square 440; lots subdivision 2S 20, 80,
and 81, square AL lots 2, g. 4, s. @, z 8, 8, IL,
81, and %, square 50i; lots 1, 9, 3, 4, 5, g, z,
8, IL, 12, and 13, square 663; part of square
0OI. All of which is assessed at $97 936, with
improvements valued at $74,050 making in
this city q total valuation of $172, 1886, making
grand total in real property of $273 0l9.
But, as tho various buildings Of the COM
pany probably cost largely in excess of this
sum, we cannot arrive at any absolutely ac-
curate valuation of the property. Local
taxes for the year ending Dec. 81, 1882 were
$7523.5O '
BY acts of congress passed July 12 1876
and March 3, 1871 a personal tax was levied
upon corporations within tho district. After
much display of feeling and discussion be.
tween the district officials and the representa-
tivos of the different aud corporate interests
| vested here, q basis of compromise was finally
agreed upon. According to this the Washing
ton and Georgetown company will pay n tax
upon twice its capital stock Of about SIS, 900
| Assessments for the track value would seem to
be limited at in the charter act, but these after
being levied for tho years ending Dec 81,
1869, 1870, and 1872, upon valuation of $780,
OO0-estimated value of roadway-were aban-
doned, leaving an amount Of S13,230, which
was never enforced, the company claiming
exemption, and rightly, by reason of the per-
sonal tax. (See report ID. Q. collector, June
3, 1879.
From March, 1871, to July, 1876, there
seems to have been paid license tax upon
cars, which ranged from 50 to $40 each. The
company ceased paying this after the latter
date on the ground of exemption by charter
The great conflict between the Washington
and Georgetown Railroad company, in COM
mon with the other street railroads, and the
district government has been the question of
| special improvement taxes incurred for work
done along tho routes of the several lines
Many nice technical and legal points are
| involved, and the matter is now in court with
the following status
Docket No. 22i57.
Dist OF Sso Columbia e EnGcd @; E1satsi TOtten,
The Wash and GeOn Attorneys s oS for account
Declaration filed Nov. q, 1880.
Appearance of defendant entered.
| Pleas fled
Joinder of issue. to first plea and demurrer to
second plea fled March 81, 1881.
| ordered to be heard in general term in first in
| stance.
Jan Is, isS2-Note of issue filed; calendered
Jan, q lsS3-Amended decara tion and ac'
acknowledgement of service filed.
Out of the conflicting opinions of Attorneys
Birney, Miller, Riddle. and others, and the
plaintive cries of senate and house COM
mittees for information upon the knotty
question, the charges and counter charges,
ordinations and recriminations. we evolve,
according to Counselor Riddle, the following
statement:
In the general enterprise of improving the
streets by the late board of public works, between
March, 1871, and June 90 1874 the streets occupied
by the companies were mostly improved and
paved The work was not done by the companies
under their charters. and had to be done By the
district under the thirty seventh section OF the
act Of FEB 2l ISL sixteenth statute. 4lS the act
first session, page 81 and Of May 30, 1873. third
session, page 80. g
The duty was imposed on the companies to do
this work by their charters, They failing, the Dis
trict Of Columbia, under the acts last referred to
was obliged to do the work. 1t will be seen that
the charters furnish no remedy against the com.
panies for this refusal. 1t will also be seen that
there are no provisions OF law by which the Dis
trict of Columbia, during this work, could assess
the companies and collect as assessments, moi
| Of Indebtedness against their property. This Is
remedial as to further cases by the act OF June II
The act Of June 90 1874 us stat, ,1ie, sec g. ere
ated q board of audit and enjoined upon IL the
special duty OF reporting to congress the am on
due the District OF Columbia on account of the
above premises. This was complied with Feb. s
| 1875.
1t was supposed congress would take action
| None being had the commissioners referred tn,
matter In 1877 to their attorney, who decided tha
the district could not collect. (See Mr.. Brney
Aug. 20. 1870 January 1880, the senate called or
! the commissioners for report as to these claims
| The matter was brought to the notice of the dis
| trict committee of the house, who called the Off
GERS of the companies before 1t, and an under
standing was had between them and the conimis
sioners that amicable cases should he made VI
aud submitted to the supreme court of the district
and the matter adjudcated. 1s
| The agreement TO make up cases was not're
duced to writing nor were the counsel of thu
| companies and district president when 1T wal
made before the committee.
| When advised of this action drew up state
| ments of the cases and applied to the several at
torneys OF the railways to join In making up th
were fruitessly spent in this endeavor when 1t wa
ascertained that the statute of Limitation woul(
be pleaded. Then the district entered suit.
The plea of the Washington and George
town Railway company to the above actiol
is now indebtedness and statute of Limitation
II James, twenty-frst chapter, &c., as modi
fed by the law of Maryland of 1715.
To the plea of limitations the distric
demurred. The court in general term sus
tanned the demurrer and decided the plea O
limitation bad.
The case is, therefore, still pending,
LOCAL MENTION.