Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-08-12
THE TRACKS IN TRINIDAD.
A Railroad Opinion Sent 60 Congress by
tho Commissioners.

"A kS0lirOoO OptntOn sent 20 congress Dy
the Commissioners.
IT 10 HID THAT THE p. 4 o. TRACKS IN THE rRrS-
dad SUBDIVISION ARE LAwFUL-prFFsRxScE
II THE LAWS RELATING TO THE h. d o. RoADAxp
THE B. 4 P.-prcisIoSs THAT DO NOT APPLY
In response 10 the resolution Of the Senate
OF August directing the Commissioners Of the
District Of Columbia to inform the Senate
whether the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Com
pany 10 proposing to occupy certain parts of
p, @ and r streets, in the Trinidad subdivision
In the District. and il SO under what authority
Of law 1t is 30 doing, the Commissioners have
replied that the permit to said company to hay
tracks across said highways was issued by them
~ advised by their attorney. a copy Of whose
opinion was transmitted. The opinion of the
attorney says:
1T appears that the railroad company desir-
ing to remove its round house and machine
shops from its yard, corner of New jersey avenue
and Q street. IN this city. and transfer large
amount Of its freight traffic from the streets in
the vicinity Of its depot. with a view to relieve
the people in that neighborhood much as
possible from the discomfort and inconvenience
arising from the operation of Its road, which
had long been the subject Of complaint. pur-
chased ground In Trinidad, adjacent to the
tracks OF it's main stem and Boundary street,
where the road enters the city, on which TO
build round house, machine shops and sid
ings and freight yards. Considering the sur
roundnSs of Trinidad one would think place
could not have been selected by the company
where the operations Of its road would be of
less Inconvenience to the public.
The company, before any question arose as
to its right TO lay tracks on tho streets of
Trinidad. had gone SO far as to demoish GER
tain OF its buildings and shops in its yard at the
station on New Jersey avenue, and had begun
the erection OF others on its purchase in
Trinidad. Those in charge OF its work seem to
have proceeded on the idea that since what
they were doing was on the company's prop
erty outside the limits of the city it was COM
petent for them to lay tracks without permit
from the Commissioners for that purpose first
had, and they proceeded with the work until
they were stopped by the Commissioners, by
police Intervention"
THE LAW OF THE CASE
The attorney then quotes the act of Congress
of March 2, 1881, authorizing the entrance of
the Baltimore and Ohio road into the city, and
the supplemental act of February H. 1885, one
section of which latter act saws:
That it shall be lawful for the said company
and they are hereby empowered TO obtain BY
gift or purchase, any lot or lots adjacent to any
| street or avenue along which the said company
shall construct their road or branches, aud to
hold and improve in such manner az may he
necessary Tor the purposes of the said COM
pany, or for the beneficial use of said road or
the branches thereof and the said company
struct tracks OF railway into any
lot or lots so held by them. in connection
with the tracks in any adjacent street or
avenue, provided that the free use OF any
street or avenue shall not be impaired thereby.
And provided also that the said company shall
not use or employ any steam engine in draw
ing or propeliing the cars, wagons or other
vehicles on part of the said road within the
city OF Washington, except in such parts as
may be agreed to by the corporate authorities
OF said city.
by virtue Of this legislation" the attorney
continues, lit is contended the Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad Company has the same rights.
privileges, &C., as to the location, construction
and running OF It's road as given by its act
incorporation by ,s the Maryland
| reference to said act of incorpora-
ton it will be seen that within the state of
Maryland said company has the right 10 cross
| or intersect or pass over any road or way pro-
| vided it does not impede thereby the passage
or transportation OF persons or property along
the same, and that it has the right also to ac-
quire property along its road, and to build
switches from its road to said property, aud to
use the said property for depot, freight and
all other purposes necessary and convenient TO
the proper conduct of its road. 1t further ap-
pears that the same rights are enjoyed by said
road in the city of Baltimore and the other
cities through which it may pass in said state.
THE B. AND o. AND THE B. AND p.
ION the other hand it is contended that the
provisions found in the act Of Congress relative
TO the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
are the same substantially as those contained
in the acts relative to the Baltimore and Poto-
mac Railroad Company: The right of the lat
ter company to lay tracks across 14th street in
this city in the absence of an act of Congress
permitting such use of the street was before
the Supreme Court in the case Of the District
OF Columbia VS.. Baltimore and Potomac Rail-
road Company Ola U. s., 453). In that case,
which III relied on by counsel representing the
owners Of property in Trinidad as authority for
the position that the Baltimore and Ohio Com
pany are not entitled to occupy streets of that
subdivision, the Baltimore and Potomac Com
pany had purchased square 233 with view to
building an additional freight depot thereon in
order to accommodate their increasing traffic.
In order to reach that square with its tracks IT
was necessary to depart from Maryland avenue
and cross square 267 and 14th street. Having
given the District of Columbia notice that it
proposed to construct a lateral track as to
connect its road with square 233, the company,
by its servant. proceeded to do the work,
which the Commissioners prevented by police
interference. Thereupoa the railroad COM
pany filed it's bill in the Supreme Court of the
District OF Columbia for an injunction to pre-
vent the Commissioners from interfering with
them in the exercise OF the right
they claimed to build lateral
track across l4th street into square 23S
The court granted the injunction as prayed,
from which the District appealed to the
Supreme Court, where 1t held that in the
absence Of an authorization by act of Congress
or the consent Of any authority representing
the city OF Washington or the District OF
Columbia the railroad company had no right
to lay its tracks in across the streets of the
city OF Washington. At page AGO the court
observes, The title to the streets of the city of
Washington is in the United States and not in
the city or in the owners of the adjacent lots
1t is, therefore, emnently proper that
the right to use them for any other than the
ordinary use Of streets should proceed from
Congress-
NOT A SIMILAR CASE.
'But Is the case of the District agt the Balti-
more and Potomac Railroad Company in point
and should 1t be followed as an authority in
this case? think not That case involved. as
we have seen, the right right of the Baltimore
and Potomac Company TO build a lateral track
across of the streets of this city without an
act of Congress specifically permitting it to do
so. The Baltimore and Potomac Company had
no right to depart from the route specifically
and infinitely laid down for them to pursue in
the act of Congress of 1870. They did not pos
sess the right, an / think the Baltimore and
Ohio Company does. to construct lateral
tracks into any lot owned by them
Their application in this case is not for
permission to lay tracks in the streets Of this
city, but In the streets or roadways of a subdi-
vision which lies outside the city limits and is
no part of the city. The Baltimore and Ohio