Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-08-15
The Railroad Opinion of the District
Commissioners.

To the Editor Of The EVENING STAR:
l have no time for general review Of the
remarkable letter of the District Commission
ers to the United States Senate in relation to
the occupancy of certain streets in the Trinidad
subdivision of this District by the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Company. But il does
seem to me that the two very acts OF Congress
partially quoted III their said letter are abso-
lutely fatal to the Commissioners claim to
jurisdiction in the case.
b. that of March 2, 1881. Congress author
lied n lateral branch of said company road to
be extended into the District of Columbia, but
expressly confined the grant to one branch as
follows: 1T being expressly understood that the
said Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
shall have power only to construct one lateral
branch within the said District"
The supplementary act of February ii. 1895
from which they also quote. makes no proyi-
sion whatever for any additional lateral branch
outside of the city of Washington. but rather
''from the main stem thereof within the said
CITY," Obviously the corporate authorities of
Washington were consulted on the subject only
because 1t related to the city over which they
had jurisdiction. OF course, If only one late raj
branch has ever been authorized by Congress
outside OF Washington city. their permit to
said company to lay tracks across the highways
in Trinidad OH the 18th ultmo was entirely
without legal authority, and this is obvious
from the EVIDENCE introduced 10y themselves
DuI bou III
goes on to say: But the Commissioners it
has been held. have the power Of the Old board
OF public works 30 far as this question is con
cerned. and the board of public works. under
the act Of 1885. allowed the Baltimore and Ohio
Company to occupy street within the city
limits with Its tracks known as the Y" and two
OF our District judges have decided that the
was ~ lawful structure"
The writer of the above seems to speak O Z
the board Of public works as the District gov
legislative powers; whereas. it was only sub
ordinate department of the executive branch
thereof. like the health department, nominally
acting under laws o! Congress and of the legisla-
tive assembly.
By whom lit has been held that the Commits j.
sioners have the powers Of the old board OF
public works" does not appear. And il said
board ever allowed the Baltimore and Ohio
Company to occupy l street with its Y track
should be glad to know when and in what man
| ner. because believe such a statement entirely
unwarranted and preposterous. Bnt even if il
! were true II does not follow that the act was
legal and even II that were conceded ii would
not iavorably affect the case in question, be :
cause this case Is not within the city limits. to
| which the act o: February IL, 1885, was ex-
clusively applicable.
| After hasty inquiry am confden. that nc
! judicial decision worthy Of consideration, to
the effect that said Y is a lawful structure, can
\ be produced.
| Obviously the board OF public works never
had any authority to grant any such privilege
and do not believe that it was ever at,emp ted
| s. C. CLARKE.
| WASHINGTON, d. c., August IA. 1880.