Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-07-26
THE CASE OF THE RAILROAD.
The Absurd Claim That the Company
Is the Victim of Technical Errors.

Is the Victim of Technical Errors.
slDlNas CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS AND
AFTER THE COURTS HAD DEFINED THE RIGHTS
OF THE coMPANY-UNcLE SAM AMONG THE
"oBsTRUcrIoNIsTs'- REPRESENTATIONS.
The argument Of the Pennsylvania railroad
in regard to the illegal side tracks, which it
has caused to be inserted in committee reports
and uttered on the floor of Congress, is to this
effect: NEARLY twenty years ago." ''under what
was believed to be absolute right" the Com
missioners granted to the railroad company au-
thority to lay these side tracks. A compare
lively recent decision OF the Supreme Court
indicates that the technical right to grant this
authority is in Congress, and not in the Com
missioners, and the formal valuation by Con-
gress is therefore sought.
The statement that all these sidings were
constructed under permits from the Commits
sloners is untrue. The statement that all Of
the permits were granted before the Supreme
Court decision in the full belief of their Elf
| cacy is untrue. The statement that the rail-
road is merely seeking to correct a perhaps
mistaken view of the technical requirements
of the law, a mistake shared with it bv the
commissioners and the public. is also untrue.
No permit whatever was granted rs the rec
ords of the District Commissioners will show,
for the sldings into square 267, square $50.
square south of 1853 and square south of 267 and
In the case OF few other squares the papers
are not found. Permits for the following sid
lngs were granted subsequent to the decision
of the Supreme Court, April 20, 1885. at time
when the highest tribunal of the land had said
that only Congress could give the authority
and when no claim of acting in good faith in
belief of legal right can be made: Sidings into
square T39, square 695 square west of 695,
square north of square 697 square 493 and square
46i. The sdings into ten of the sixteen squares
to be legaliZed were either constructed without
permits or under permits issued after the
Supreme Court had declared that only Con-
gress had power to grant the authority.
AN ABSURD CLAIM.
The railroads claim that it thought the Com
missioners had the right and that it, the Com
missioners and the people were all deceived to-
gether, is ridiculous. The railroad took the
position that it could construct side-tracks at
its pleasure under its charter. without regard
to people, Commissioners or Congress. The
opponents of the railroad in the case which the
Supreme Court decided against the road were
the Commissioners of the District. The court
in its decision commented severely upon this
extraordinary claim of the road, and con-
cluded its opinion by saying:
"We are of the opinion that when this COM
pany wishes to depart in any direction from
the line of its present track prescribed for
sion to do so from that body. And that Con-
gress, and not the court nor tho company. is
the judge of the expediency or the necessity OF
such change, and of the manner in which the
public good requires it to be made and the
safeguards which should accompany it," cd
monds ct al, Commissioners, vs. Baltimore
and Potomac Railroad Company, April 90
1850 From that day to this the railroad has
known that all its sidings and its incidental
occupation OF public property by them were
illegal, but 1t failed to call the attention of
Congress to its affairs lest some of tho improve
ments which vigilant local legislature would
long ago have compelled should be eXacted
from it. So it made no move until indicted,
and 1T now pleads for tho legislation which it
should long ago have sought. and fights vigor-
ously against the exaction from it of any i'm
provements as compensation.
SOME OF THE "KICKERs."
1t is claimed by the railroad that these in
dictments were procured by "kickers," sob
structionists," &c, &c. 1t is worthy of note
that prominent among the kickers was Uncle
Sam in the shape of his commissioner of public
grounds, who called attention repeatedly to
the fact that these illegal tracks traversed and
occupied reservations or open spaces, the prop
erty OF the United States which were improved
as parks in other parts of the city. And this
kicker in his report of 1887 called loudly for
legal proceedings against the road. He said
Il have reported fully from time to time the
facts of the occupancy OF the reservations by
the railroad company, and was informed under
date of February 10. 1887, by tho United States
district attorney for the District of Columbia,
that the Attorney General of the United States
had referred the papers in the case to him and
instructed him to institute such pro-
warrant and as may be necessary for
the enforcement of the law against the
company and the maintenance of the rights
and interests of the United States in the prem
ises." In 1889 the Attorney General formally
directed the district attorney to take legal
measures to cause the removal of the several
tracks referred to, and the indictments of
which the road complains followed. The Su-
preme Court Of the United States, the COM
missioner of public buildings and grounds of
the United States and the Attorney General of
the United States were prominent among the
"kickers' who have combined to abuse and
persecute the Pennsylvania railroad.
WHERE THE ILLEGAL sIDISGs ARE.
The squares into which the sidings are legal
lied by the Atkinson bill, and the facts con-
corning each in respect " occupation of reser-
vations and supposed lawfulness of construction
as follows:
Square 737.-Barber & Ross. Permit. Just
before Supreme Court decision. March II,
1885.
Square 739-United Oil Co. Permit. Long
after decision. Dec. 2, 1887.
Squares Cos and W. 695.-B. & P. Permit.
After decision. June 20, 1885. Tracks cross
reservation la.
Square n. W. COB. 4 P. Permit. Before
decision. Tracks cross reservation PAL.
Square H. 697.-Mller. Permit. After deci-
sion. Dec. g. 1886.
Square Q. 642.-Shryock. Permit. Before
decision. Tracks cross reservation 1l2
Square n. 642-Marlow. Permit Before
decision. Tracks cross reservation 109
Square 64l.-Abner. Permit. Just before
decision. April 9. 1885.
Square 536.-Miller. Permit. Before de-
cisiOn.
Square 493.-B. 4 P. Permit. After decis-
ion. April %, 1886.
Square g. 463.-No permit.
Square 464.-Bergner Engel Portner, Pal
mer. Permits. All after decision. October
n, 1887; February s. 1888, and March -, 1883,
respectively.
Square 3S6.-B. & P. No permit. Tracks
cross reservation 17S
Square 267.-B. & p. No permit
Square S. 267.-B. Il P. No permit (There
is note of permit to NicolaI Bros. for Sc. 267,
not s. 267, after decision, April 9, 1886. The
papers in the case are not found)
1t appears from this showing that the sidings
into three squares, 1877, GAL and $50, supplying
either as occupying reservations, or AS con-
structed without permits or under permits
granted by the Commissioners after the Su-
preme Court had declared that permission
must be secured from Congress. 1t appears
that erery siding constructed for the purposes
OF the railroad was either constructed without