Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-07-05
AGAINST A RAILROAD.
Proceedings to Forfeit the Metro
politan Charter.
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY READY
An Old Claim Which Has Beer
Before the Courts.
AN UNPAID PAVING BILL.

1t is more than probable that within the next
few days District Attorney Birney. acting on be-
half OF the Attorney General will proceed against
the Metropolitan Railroad Company Of this
city In the matter Of the forfeiture Of the
companys charter because of it's failure to pay
the expenses incurred by the District between
the years 1871 and 1878 in paving
and otherwise improving the space between
and adjoining the tracks controlled by the COM
pany. The new move Of the govern
ment will probably be in the ma
ture Of demurrer to the plea
Of the company filed last February. which plea
was filed in answer to the information in the
nature of bill in quo warranto filed
by the district attorney on the 18th
Of last December. The expected demurrer
OF the government will most likely be entered
In Judge Bradley's court, Circuit Court No. /,
but the customary summer recess Of the courts
Will hardly permit its argument before next fall.
The question will hardly be determined before
the snow flies. And even then either side has
the right Of an appeal first to the Court of Ap.
peals and then to the United States Supreme
Court
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
The case has both lengthy and an interest
ing history. By an act Of Congress Of July /,
1864, granting a charter to the road it was
expressly stipulated, as contended BY the gov
eminent, that the road was to keep in
repair and improve, whenever necessary, the
roadway between its tracks and for q space Of
two feet adjoining them on either side In
improving the streets. between the years 1871
and 1879, over which the tracks Of the company
ran 1t became necessary for the District
on the failure OF the company to SO do. to i'm
prove the streets lying between the company
tracks and on the two feet Of space adjoining
them. This being done, the District lodged q
claim for the work done against the COM
pany, amounting to $751; g. The COM
pany refusing to pay the claim on the 9th
OF November, 1880, suit was entered
BY the District against the COM
Court OF the District on the law side Of the
court, and a trial being had. verdict was
rendered May l, 1884, against the company for
S147, 750.o5, the jury reducing the amount
claimed by the District by SlS,s7247.
THE SUPREME COURT DECISION.
On an appeal by the company the Court in
General Term affirmed the judg-
ment of the trial court, but on
further appeal by the COM
pany the United States Supreme Court. on the
2lst Of October, 1882 reversed the Judgment
below. holding that the statute of i,mi-
tations had interviewed. The decision
OF the Supreme Court, the government con-
tended, merely decided that the remedy of re-
covery through the courts was gone because Of
the Intervention Of the statute of iimita-
lions, the suit being entered five
claims against the road, but claimed that the
Supreme Court did not assert that the
company's indebtedness to the District
was removed. So 1t was that Congress
decided that the road should be compelled to
pay what the government claimed was a lust
md ~ "A
enacted by Congress that unless the judg-
ment secured by the District against the
company, &l47, 750.05, should be paid within
eighteen months time the charter of
the company should be forfeited This
period expired with the Judgment unpaid, and
the government asking for the forfeiture Of the
companys charter, mentioned above, were in
augurated.
AN ACT OF FORFEITURE.
The plea Of the company, filed last February,
in answer to the information filed by the gov
eminent. denied, in effect, that Congress
had the power to pass an act of
forfeiture, alleging that forfeiture was not q
legislative but judicial act and that while Con-
gress might possess the power to repeal the act
granting charter to the company, it could not,
by enactment. forfeit that charter. The COM
pany also pleaded that Congress, by subsequent
viz, the authorizing Of the
company to change its motive power, and
the time in which 1t was
to be done, &C., waived the for
FIXTURE Of the company's charter previously
declared. And the company further pleaded
that Congress possessed no power to subse-
quently require the payment Of a Judgment
which the Supreme Court of the land had
held could not be recovered, judiciously. be-
cause of the Intervention Of the statute of
limitations. The expected demurrer Of the
government will naturally hold that
the plea OF the company Is bad,
and will undoubtedly contend that
Congress possessed ample power to provide
for the collection Of a debt which the govern
ment contends has by no court been declared
to be An unjust one.