Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-02-14

Ths Question Argued Bsfers the Heuss Dis
trict Cummittec.

| A HEARrSo TODAY IxvoLvrxo SEVERAL RAN ROAD
PROJECTS AND TINE FATE or TEE cAxAI--Bcxp-
zoLpERs WHO WANT THh wkIERwKH PRESENTED
THE WASHINGTON AND oussxnLAxpn RAILROAD.
The House committee on the District of
Columbia may not have come to any conclu-
| sion ~ to whether the wasi ing.on and Cum
beriand Railroad Company ought TO como into
the District over the remains Of the Chesapeake
| and Ohio canal, but at the meeting
OF the committee this morning it
became evident that the canal 10
| not a. dead as some people sup
pose 1t 10. The patient mule may yet
trample down the grass which has sprung up
since the June freshet Of 1883 and the bluff
bows Of deliberate canal boats disturb the
sluggish waters of that commercial stream
which owes Its existence to corporation which
was originally presided over by George WASH
inston. The hearing this morning was on the
combination bill which passed the Senate few
Gays ago and was printed in TIE STAR. allow
Ing both the Norfolk and Western and the
Washington and Cumberland roads 10 enter the
District; the former by way of
bridge across the Potomac from tae end
OF their present line, thence by way of Water
street to Rock creek and across the creek to a
Depot west of 26th street, and the latter road
down the line of the old canal to similar
depot.
A CROWDED COMMITTEE ROOM.
The passage of the bill in the Senate had evil
IDENTITY stirred up commotion and the commit
tee room was crowded this morning. Eleven
members OF the committee were present
ana every interest in any way connected with
the two proposals WAS Represented by able
counsel
The Washington and Cumberland Railroad
Company had Judge Jeremiah N. Wilson a. it's
advocate, while T. p. B. Sands looked after the
interests OF the other company named in the
bill under consideration--the Norfolk and
Western. In behalf Of the bondholders Of 1874.
practically the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
Company and also practically the Baltimore
and Ohio railroad, there was a great
array OF legal talent. J. Il. Cowsn, general
counsel OF the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company; George E. Hamilton, local counsel
". w. Dudley, Mr.. Bryan and Receiver VIM
snip were among the number. Besides these
gentlemen tho room was crowded with citizens
OF the District interested in one way or another
In the bill. Several members Of the House
were among the interested audience.
JUDGE WILSON'S ARGUMENT.
Judge Wilson's argument was to the effect
that opposition to the bill conferred In the
Baltimore and Ohio Railway Company. That
corporation, he said, furnished the s6o0, 900
with which to take up the bonds of 1878 and its
deep interest was shown by the fact that the
chief contractor of the B. and o. and Miss
Mary Garrett, one of the roads heaviest
STOCKHOLDERS, went on the bonds Of the re-
covers Inc state OF Maryland had always in
tended the canal to be a competitor of the Bslti-
more and Ohio, and now the railroad. after
bankrupting the business of the canal bv
manipulation Of freight rates. was doing its
utmost to crush what promised to be = real
competition.
Mr.. Cowan claimed that legislation in the
state of Maryland had been 80 adjusted that no
one cooia pa Ior the canal II II was sold ut
Pubhc auction but the Washington and Cum
Derland Company.
ms was denied by Judge Wilson,
simplicity OF the Legislation asked from Con-
gress Dy stating that all the Washington and
Cumberland Company now asked was permits
SION to construct its line within the District
when 1t had built the road In Maryland and up
to R the District line.
whether 1t would be agreeable to the Washing
ton and Cumberiand people If the bill Was so
amended as 70 make the act OF Congress in
operative unth the line was constructed from
ou n,,5e M!, 70 the District boundary.
1adgo wilson said he had anticipated just
sucn proposition and had prepared an araend-
ment, which ne laid before the committee.
THE BoSDHoLDERs.
Mr.. Bryan, trustee. bondholdsr and the
executor OF an estate largely interested in the
bonds o. 1874. next talked Of the iniquities to
which bondholders would be subject should the
bill becom law. He said the history of the canal
under the control of the state was . Chronicle
filled to overiiowing with disaster and mis-
management. Up to- 1857 the operating ey.
penses Of the canal never exceeded s 90 COS nm.
nually, but the canal fell into the hands OF
politicians when the state assumed control. Thnt
wrecked it az a business venture. Extrsnnd;rorv
expenses which. singularIy enouch we're Al.
ways to be met lust about election t,mes- sent
the annual expenditures mn TO ANYTHING from
s225. 900 to $3.50 900.
One. or two members of the comn,;t,ae
wanted to know how the scheme WINS worked
but Mr. Bryan said he was not ACQUAINTED with
the methods but he did know that such eY-
penditures played an important part in. Mary
lands political history. He had been offered 25
cents on the dollar for his bond, But be had re-
fused to accept the proffer, even wheu At Was M
timatcd that he. being a large holder
might perhaps get little more II
he would be quiet. The monopoly
the Washington and Cumberland COMPANY
said take Is cents or get nothing. Then Mr.
Bryan said very plainly TINT the bondholders
were going to repair and operate the canal.
The cost OF repairing would be much less Yhan
the estimates which had SO freely been made
public. TT.
THE a. AND O. AND rHr noxna
Mr. cowa, ,h.n tool, ,h. a. "a
S' eu AIseu
out py saying tnat tne balt1nore and Ohio