Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-06-10

gentleman from South Carolina CMr. Hemphill)
has already said. that engines were not to come
In there. but only the cars. They got q right
from Congress to come out and build their
station on the public reservation. coming
across the public mall and cutting it in two.
That Is the reservation that extends from the
Capitol here to the White House. Their station
stands there today.
NO RIGHT TO GRANT THE PERMISSION.
He said that the Commissioner had no more
right to grant the railroad the permission they
did to Law sidings than had the man in the
moon. When the road asked that these tracks
be legalized. they should be required TO fix a
time when they would get back With their
tracks and depot from the reservation. He
asked how any member could justify his vote
to give greater park facilities to the District
and at the same time vote away to a corpora
ton for its private use the parks now in the
city. The mall had been donated. he said, to
the city for a particular purpose, and 1t was a
breach of trust to permit II to be occupied by
this railroad. and should the heirs of the
original owners of the property lay claim. he
believed this breach of trust would work a
forfeiture to them.
Mr.. CHAPMAN DEFENDS THE DISTRICT.
Mr.. Chapman OF Michigan made a vigorous
defense of the Districts interests. He declared
that it was an outrage that the mall should be
| cut in two by the tracks and a part of it be Oc-
cupIed by u depot. The depot should be moved
back off the mall. He wanted to know what
\ compensation the Pennsy lyania railroad gave
the public for the use of this mall.
Mr.. Atkinson said they gave them comforta-
bic cars and the finest road in the country and
the greatest convenience for travel.
Mr.. Chapman said that was tissue-paper
pay.
The people paid in cash for the comforts of
travel, why should the District pay a bonus be-
sides?
Mr.. Clunie spoke in opposition to the bill
and he was followed by Mr.. Heard, who took the
railroads side of the question.
SPEAKING FOR THE RAILROAD.
Mr.. Heard stated that the question was
thoroughly gone over in committee and every
opportunity given for discussion. The bill
was sent to the Commissioners and some modi-
fcation made in it at their suggestion. For
weeks 1T had been held up to enable every
member to discuss the measure. As the result
of the triennial conclave freight was side
tracked for weeks because the company had
not sufficient yard facilities to handle it. 1t
was said that the purpose was to squeeze the
people who were opposing the side tracks.
Was il probable that the company purposely
held back these cars. which were worth "A or
- per day 10 them? 1t might be better to
move the freight business further back. He
(Mr. Heard would favor that. but the passen-
ger station should remain where ii is.
Mr.. Milliken of Maine-What will become of
the District Commissioners if We place them in
the hands of this great corporation?
Mr.. Heard-They will be just as safe as men,
bers of Congress. l think the Commissioner
are just as honest as the members of this
House.
Whether or not" he said. lit is practicable
TO depress these TRACKS SO as to get trains in
and out where the depot will be located. if the
proposition for removal should be carried out.
is an engineering question which | am not here
to solve, as | do not know. Yet. if these tracks
are depressed - to 20 feet you cannot have the
sidIngs from them so as to be able to do the
commercial business of this city.
1T may he better to have the freight business
removed farther back. lido not object to that.
| believe that the passenger depot should be
where it is, even If the railroad were required
to arch .he place over in a proper manner so
as to prevent it from being unsightly to the
public. and to remOve the Objectionable smoke,
steam and noise.
But now Mr.. Chairman. l come to the prop
osition of whether We want the depot moved
back or not; and | would say that that cuts no
figure in the consideration of this bill. This is
a question that does not touch the location of
the depot or the question of the OCCUPANCY of
the mall. and the friends of the proposition for
the removal OF the depot have logged that
question In here where 1t is irrelevant and bur-
dens a question in nowise related to it. As to
whether these sidings should be legallzed or
not L have no personal knowledge"
HOW THE DISTRICT COMMITTEE STANDS.
He said a large majority of the District COM
mittee had favored this bill. Mr.. Moore, men,
Der of the committee. interrupted. saying:
The gentleman does not wish, of course, to
lead the House into a MISUNDERSTANDING
Mr.. Heard-MOstc certainly not.
Mr.. Moore (N.H. And he does not mean to
have the committee put IN a wrong light?
Mr.. Enthusiastically no.
Mr.. Moore (N.H.)-The votJ in committee
l state it IN order that it may be fairly under
stood-was four votes for the bill and three
votes against il.
Mr.. ~Heard-There was a bare quorum OF
seven. Now / will ask the gentleman from
New Hampshire TO state to the House in all
fairness how many members of the committee.
according to his understanding. would have
voted against the bill had the m been
full? How many more than three votes would
there have been against the bill?
Mr.. Moore of New Hampshire-As the gen.
tleman has asked the question | will answer il
as frankly as it has been asked. / do not think
that a majority of the full House committee is
In favor of this bill.
Mr.. Heard-Well. 1 differ with the gentle
man very distinctly. On the contrary. | affirm
committee as between this bill and the other,
and on tnls bill IN the abstract, a decided ma
Jorlty OF the committee voted in favor OF re-
porting this bill.
Mr.. McComas-Would not that question be
well settled by recommitting the whole matter:
WI. - Is uDt II question IOT ME 10
answer. but one to be determined by the House.
Mr.. Baker-Thls, then, WAS a premature
birth2
Mcssrs. Anderson of Kansas. McComas, Mill
ken ana Kerr of Iowa made vigorous speeches
In opposition to the bill.
HOW THE BILL WAS DRAWN.
Mr.. Anderson said he was very glad the gen.
tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Atkinson), il
charge OF this bill. and who introduced il
states that he did not draw the bill. but that il
was handed TO him for presentation. Il pre-
sdme. he said, that 1T was drawn by the
counsel OF the Pennsylvania Railroad Company
mat Is. at least, a fair presumption. for the
reason that the company is the beneficiary u il
the case, so that We are met with a proposition
formulated by tie Pennsylvania Railroad Com
pany and simply introduced by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania. for which he is not an,
more responsible than any one is responsible
for Il bill which he introduces bv request. Blu
We are certainly called upon to examine III,
bill carefully, as being legislation framed ant
asked for by a corporation which seeks. undo,
It's provisions. TO obtain an immensely yaluabl,
franchise and property.
1t Is quite surprising in view OF this fact
that the gentlemen on the committee who hay,
spoken have been unable 20 tell US what specii,
tracts Of ground or how many squares the bill
really opens TO the Pennsylvania Company
When asked the question Can you tell hoy
many blocks or what particular blocks are giveI
To the company the iuyarlable answer is: No
personally We know nothing about this
Now, Mr.. Cnairman III, it seems to me. will
the utmost respect for the gentlemen on tn q
committee. that as members of the committe,
they ought personally to have known some
thing about the exact grants proposed to b.
made by this bill. Why? Because as sucl