Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-10-14


CAPITOL STREET WITHOUT A PERMIT NOT
DEEMED VIOLATION OF POLICE REGULATIONS
-ARGUMENTs OF COUNSEL
This morning in the Police Court, No. 1, Act
ing Judge Mills, Prosecuting Attorney Dumont
called the judges attention to a charge OF OBJ
structing the street against John Eagan an
employe OF the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company. The alleged obstruction was the
construction Of short track across North Cap
ltol and ID streets, which was to connect the
main depot with the passenger yard. Messrs.
Hamilton and Colbert represented the railroad
company.
Mr.. Dumont said that Mr. Hamilton. for the
company, would admit the facts. Mr. Dumont
said that the question was simply as to the
right of the company. under their charter, to
lay the track. There might also be question
as to whether the established grade was inter
fered with or not.
THE GRADE NOT ISTERFERED WITH.
Mr.. Hamilton said that there was no claim
that the grade had been interfered with in the
| least
Mr.. Hamilton argued that the case was one
| that should not have been brought before this
court. The case, he argued, was one for the
| Equity Court and should have been brought in
suit TO enjoln the railroad company, &c.
Counsel referred TO the act Of 1881 incorpo-
rating the railroad. He read from this act in
support of his claim that the railroad company
has the right to construct sidings 10 connect
| property acquired by the company adjacent to
thelr line OF tracks. He thought IL very strange
that this right had never been denied until the
Trinidad matter was investigated. Heretofore
| he said, when applications were made for per-
mits the company was always informed that
permits were unnecessary SO long as the grade
was not lnterfered with.
Mr.. DUMoSr ARGUED
that had the District had time the proper
course would have been to have obtained an
| injunction, but. he said after the tracks were
put down it was too late for such proceedings,
and this court was therefore the proper TIL
bunal to hear the case.
Mr.. Dumont said that by consent he had also
charged that the work done without per-
NIT. The fact that the railroad companies
have had six or eight tracks in the streets since
1880 does not give them the right to construct
other tracks which obstruct the street and pre-
vent the free use thereof without being ac-
countable under the criminal law. Arguing
from the law he said the free use Of the street
| is already impaired.
Mr.. Hamilton responded to the remarks OF
counsel for the District and referred 70 the
| Trinidad matter. In that matter, he said, the
action OF the company was for the benefit Of
| the District as we'll as the company and he
thought that the objection was made by the
citizens rather than by authorities.
Counsel argued that the construction OF Q
| single track beside tracks which cannot be dis
turbed certainly cannot be an obstruction.
The police regulations, he thought, referred to
temporary distractions that impeded travel or
made travel dangerous for the time being
Speaking OF the free use of the street being in
terfered with, counsel did net think il TO mean
track being placed on the grade, but il might
apply If the street was
BLocKADED BIZ CARS AND ENGINFs
Mr.. Dumont argued to show that what might
constitute obstruction in the city would not
be such in the country. The construction Of
an additional track might make traffic exceed
inaly dangerous, and horse in attempting to
keep out of the way Of q train might have it,
hoof pulled off,
After all the argument and speculation"
concluded Mr.. Dumont, 1.-THE only question 10
whether the company had q right 70 obstruct
the street in the manner charged without fret
having obtained permit"
"What Is the obstruction" asked the court
"The railroad track" replied Mr.. Dumont
"We claim that il is an obstruction, and want
the court to decide whether the company had q
right TO put il there or not"
Mr.. Hamilton called the courts attention TO
the grade OF the street He said that the tracks
at the point Icharged-North Capitol and ID
streets-aie 40 feet below the grade, and are
therefore irnpassable.
JUDGE MILLS SAID
that the case was brought on an Information
for alleged obstruction. Had the company
demurred to the information the court would
have sustained the demurrer and allowed the
case to have been heari in the Supreme Court
of the District in the FIRST instance.
The court is restricted TO the bare facts a. 10
whether the work wns done in violation Of the
police regulations. The court read the section
of the police regulations and said that from
the examination that the court had made the
law had not been violated by the company.
Section of the act Of 1885 regulates that mat
ter, and under its provisions the company had
q perfect right to construct the track.
The case was therefore dismissed
The judge referred 10 the grade Of NORTH
Capitol street south of the tracks, which he
said never was in condition TO permit the paas-
age of vehicles.
Barneque's Case Nvlle Pressed.
Today in the Police Court Prosecuting A.