Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-03-28
THE H STREET TRACKS.
A Vigorous Protest Against Extension
OF the Permit.

|
Of the Permit.
Messrs. Dryer and Parker were on hand
bright and early this morning to protest against
the extension Of the permit for railroad tracks
on h street southeast. Yesterday the time ex.
pired for the removal of the tracks on the
street between South Capitol street and New
Jersey avenue, but nothing was done toward
their removal. The gentlemen submitted the
following letter to the District Commissioners;
WASHINGTON, D. c., March %. 1889.
GENTLEMEN: Once more referring to the
affidavit of Messrs. John T. Webster and Pat
rick Sullivan, as to the distractions maintained
by the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad COM
pany at Delaware avenue and E street. where
they cross Virginia avenue southwest, they
desire to call your attention to act February
g. 1857, section 8, page 1888, which is as follows:
And be it further enacted, that whenever
the said company, in the construction of a rail-
road into or within the said District, as author
ICED by this act, shall find it necessary to cross
or intersect any established road or other way
it shall be the duty of the said company so to
construct the said railroad across such estab-
lished road, street, or other way. as not to i'm
pede the passage or transportation of persons
or property along the same"
We cannot for one instant see how you can
allow these distractions to remain. You have
the law and you have the affidavits as to the
ting the law, and should be forced by legal
means to obey the mandates of Congress. If
the railroad is not violating tie law, the parties
making affidavits commit perjury, and should
be punished There is no halfway. The Com
missioners, under their oath of Office. are bound
to give these affidavits serious attention.
We also wish to protest against the application
OF the solicitors for the railroad company to
retain track on H street southeast. 1t is the
same old story, to allow them to violate the
law until Congress meets and give them relief.
1t seems rather a strange request for an attor-
ney to make, asking the Commissioners of the
District in face of positive law and decision of
the United States Supreme Court, to grant
them the privilege OF maintaining an illegal
track.
=, The only plausible excuse for this track is
the alleged business of this company handling
excurslonlsts next October. See the following
opinion of the Supreme Court. Referring to
how specifically Congress directed how and
where the track should be laid, the court SAYS:
AND no power exists in one of these COR
poratlons to lay tracks however short anywhere
else; again it says: 1T is, therefore, eminently
proper that the right to use them referring to
streets.) for any other than ordinary use of
streets, should proceed from Congress, aud we
can see no place for the assertion of any right
in the company to make other tracks or
changes In those now existing without an act
giving consent of that body. The court con-
tinues: 1--WE are Of the opinion that when the
company wishes to depart in any direction
from the line of the present track, as pre-
scrlbed for 1t by the present act of Congress. it
must obtain permission to do SO from that
body. And that Congress and not the court
nor the company Is judge of the expediency
or the necessity OF such change" See case No.
23o3, october term, 1884, Supreme Court of the
United States.
We also quote from the opinion given by Mr..
A. II. Riddle attorney for the District in which
he says that the right of the public to use these
streets and alleys the ordinary means of
transit, Is exclusive; who ever claims special
right claims what belongs to the public and
must show grant from the proper authorities
or he fails, and that the law bearing on this
matter is unambiguous and free from doubt
mat Congress Is the sole source of authority;
In fact Congress prohibits the authorities of
the District from granting any corporation or
individual any franchise. (Section a. Revised
Statutes of the District Columbia Section 222
of Revised Statutes prohibits any part of a
street for any private use.
The above facts should be sufficient for the
Commissioners refusing to extend the permit.
permit which they have no authority to
grant, and we are OF the opinion should any
person be damaged by the Commissioners
granting an illegal permit, that the parties so
damaged will have action at law against the
Commissioners and their bondsmen personally
We also wish to refer to the general reasons
given in the letter of the solicitor for the rail-
Knights Templar next October. it is well known
that the railroad company would not for one
moment use a track between a round-house
freight-yard and the sweet-scented canal for
passengers when they have any number of
tracks in the heart of the city, Could not the
railroad company make temporary arrange
ments on Sixth street as was done on the 4th of
March? On that date the Commissioners as
sumed authority and granted them permit
under some unknown law and we presume they
could find that identical law once more. We
deny that the public Is accommodated by this
track. A few coal and lumber dealers and the
railroad reap the benefit, while the public de-
mands its removal.
We also deny that this portion of H street is
useless unless 1t is the fact of the railroad COM
pany 0bstructing the east outlet and occupying
the bed of the street by illegal tracks Part of
the reservations used at the point by the rail-
road company is held under a lease from the
Commissioners at an annual rental of thirty
five hundred (s3,5OO) dollars. The Commits
sloners have no more right to rent tbs ground
to the public than they have to rent the rail-
road company our own dwelling houses
Shame on the officials who boiittle their Office
by such action. While we nave not the least
idea that the Commissioners will grant this
permit, at the same time we notify W
that should the permit be extended
and make sworn complaint against
said company, and against any official who NAV
be party to this scheme to usurp the rights of
the public as to the use of the streets. 1t is
not our wish to take such action. but we are
advised by the assistant attorney. Mr. Davis
that the mere action Of the Commissioners to
grant such permit will not make it legal
Referring to our letter of the ed, your atten-
ton is called to the fact that the above opinions
referred to are applicable to the extra tracks
enumerated in our letter.
Very respectfully,
CHAS, H PARKER