Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-11-11


From the deei-Ion OF the assistant attorney
Of the District in the matter Of the legal rights
OF the baltimore and Potomac railroad In the
streets Of Washington the people Of this city
appeal to the decision, already on record, of
III supreme Court Of the United States.
The assistant district attorney holds that all
the powers rights and privileges granted Is the
read By it, MARYLAND charter we're extended by
Congress in Is6! TO 1t in i;s course through
Washington. Since this charter gives the rail-
road siIty--ix fee, right Of way. except at or
near it, dspots where the width may be in
definitely greater. with many tracks the
president and directors NAV deem necessary.
he decides that the railroad has in the streets Of
Washington complete control Of a strip sixty
.i1 feet vide, even though that Is greater
width than that Of the roadway of the occu-
pied street and the railroads domain Is
tsuded BY this construction over the sidewalk
He decides that at or near its stations the
railroad has exclusive legal control OF in
definitely wider strip. and that within these
strips u can lay just many tracks and make
lust such change in its tracks as II plesses.
ri; we're true that the provisions o. the
Maryland charter applied in ;hi. fashion 70 the
had the right to lay side-;rscks in the city. the
Atkinson bill to ''legalize" such tracks 10 prop
er,y AUDITING the line Of the road would have
been unnecessary. and the road could have
made connections with the property which it
purchased for freight purposes on 18th street
The attempt to make these connections
justified by 1t on the ground that its Maryland
charter was broadly applicable in the District
.h. -Frhf To, Law tbaza ida- tr Ia
existed.
But the Supreme Court Of the United States
in a decision rendered IN 1856 Ola L. s. 453)
saws;
The title to the streets of Washington is in
the United states and not in the city or in the
owners % the adjacent lots Ii IL therefore
eII.inenily proper that the right to Use them
for any other than the ordinary use of streets
should proceed from Congress; and when We
consider the express reservation OF the power
81 Congress to allow this use in the original
grant TO the company. found in the third Sec
ton OF that act. and the detail and
precision with which every foot of the
track or tracks Of the road has been prescribed
bv Congress- and that every change which eX-
pediency required has been previously author
lied by Congress- We can see no place for the
assertion of any right ia the company TO make
other tracks OF change IN location Of those now
existing without an act giving the consent of
that body.
In tee face Of these statutes it is hardly
necessary to look INTO the language of the
charter of the company b. the legislature of
Maryland % see II the powers thus conferred,
and which said TO be adopted by the act of
Congress, gives this extraordinary power.
IL L. sufficient TO saw that we do not find in
the Maryland charter Of that company any
power a. use the streets of a city an incident
Of it, right to run to or from such city. That
no such right j. granted NAV be fairly inferred
frar 10 fact 4hatsl he trae of ms al Urn
for two miles under the city Of Baltimore in a
tunnel built for that purpose. which must have
delayed the completion of the road two or
three wears. and cost n large sum Of money.
The company certainly would not have used
this expensive underground roadway If any
thing In Its charter authorized 1t to use the
surface streets OF the CITY.
And If the construction which counsel place
upon that charter Is sound il Is very certain
that Congress did not intend extending that
power OF the company into the District Of Co
IumbiA and part with its own control of the
streets and highways OF Washington city for
-neh power II in conflict with the exp Yess
language of the act and With the constant prae-
tire uncer IT,
The Supreme Court says that the grant o,
the Maryland charter privileges in extending to
eity does not include the control. provided
by the Maryland charter over the streets Of
that city. and far a. Washington is con-
fttttiatA ~ III filttNt anu con-
Tradition Of the opinion Of Mr.. Thomas: = We
ceR piGre fer "a. assertion 81 any right
is ~ Company 70 MAKE ether tracks or changes
~ n LcrfiaH # hose sris:iBJ 'r,d,Oat an
at girs.5 ne consent = hot body Congress-"
II NJ. Thomas opinion were good law the
results would he very serious for Washington.
Instead Of having merely jealously restricted
transit privilege over specified streets, ON
sp.ciied tracks. thr road would have without
additional legislation almost unlimited power
In South Warrington. and j: could DO pretty
mnsh IL pl.a-eI IN track having both in he
eiy sire, = AMI across the tats the approaches
10 thu Long Bridge without even taking the
tFoubis % an permits ION Of Congress.
AZ j. very evident ;Ea, the road Is seeking
A-Lort-r cut 70 the attainment Of it, desires
than tha; yaoried by way % congressional
legl-latioE. IL Will certainly have no need to
push 4 bah 10 secure trsck-layInS privileges in
the Roighborhood o. the Long bridge II it can
successfully execute tbs .ank movement. and
get the Commissioners a.. the District and the
Secretary % War 70 override the Supreme
Cont Of the United State.
The people Of the District will hope most
earnestly tha. the Commissioners rnay in the
pubic interest reconsider their assent TO this
dangerous and unsoaRd doctrine
-