Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-02-07
THE MErRoroL,rA~.s .~sw,E
Tho Company Claims That ia. nl,..l St.,e.
Have Waived Their Hirht..

INC company Claims That the nIt..l state.
Have Waived Their Eisht-.
Today Messrs. Nathaniel Wilson ana sheIl,-
bargor A Wilson. in the case OF the Un.te,
States against the Metropolitan Railroad
Company. filed pleas in the proceeding.
recently begun against the railroad com
pany by the Attorney General 60 forfeit
the compsny's charter After quoting from
numerous acts relative 10 the rArro.l
including the provisions Of the act e Mareh 2.
requiring the payment Of Judgments chta.net.
the respondent states that the Judgment which
had not been paid by the roSd Vas not "a
force. the Supreme Court Of the United States
having reversed n.
For a second plea the respondent saws A. 10
the alleged failure 10 comply with she obl. cntsat
20 pave between it, tracks. NC. thnt -
causes did not accrue within five wears 20 tie
commencement Of the suit
For third plea the respondent ssvs that ths
causes mentioned in tire second plea have bega
continuously enforced under the NTH s-rii1a
of the &C: % June II. ISIS. ana constitute
waiver OF right Of action.
For farther plea the fact that Congress hsy-
ing full knoNledge OF the alleged breaches -
charter passed the act OF March ? 1883. aui
the defendant has in all things complied thcr,-
with
similar plea is based on the act OF Angus,
6. 1880.
The sixth plea sets forth as to the omission q
pay the Judgment under act Of March s. 1891
that the claim sued covered the entire clam
OF the District az that time and by writ -
error u was taken TO the supreme Court OF the
United States and Judgment reversed
For a seventh plea the defendant says ss TO
the failure 10 comply with the oct 81 Narsh
1881. that II did proceed Co relay its tracks With
srooNed rails a required by the terms az said
act approved March >. lss9. and o. maze
Investigations. experiments and preparations
with r,te-prnfe "a
the place Of horse power a motive po~cr
mat would meet the requirements -
the act approved August g. 1870.
and finally adopted and determined -
use an electrical . system for the
propulsion of its cars. and proceeded 20 pr,.-
pare for the introduction and use ~
said system as substitute for hor-s
power. and expended large sums Of moa~y.
TO wit. $500. 900 in its said preparations.
and in the erection Of large aud eA-
penslVe buildings, and in procuring aud
putting in place engines. dvnsmos aud other
expensive apparatus ana machinery. "A
obtaining storage batteries and new
and expensive ears. aud N an respects
endeavored 20 comply with the provision. 81
the acts Of Congress. but by reason 81 tie
difficulties necessarily incident 10 tnat chang.
IN motive power. and Of the imperfectiou-
incident to the system Of propulsion b.
means OF electric storage batteries in the prss-
ent condition OF that system IL was found 10 b.
Impossible Tor the defendant 10 equip tie road
with cars propelled by electricity within the
two wears prescribed by the act OF
Congsess. and this being fully known TO Con
gress together with all the other facts in th.
case including the refusal to pay the Judgment
reversed by the United States supreme
Court. on the 22d OF July. 1892. Congress
passed the joint resolution granting further
time, and the defendant has since the passage
OF the resolution. at great expense. proceeded
to comply with the requirements OF the Joint
resolution.
The defendant says that the joint resolution
OF July Y. 1892. operated as a repeal Of the pro-
visions of the act Of March 8. 1891. and oper-
ated as and IL absolute waiver Of the
attempted and alleged forfeiture OF the
charter, franchises. privileges. rights aud
property Of the defendant. and said Joint reso-
ldtion Is an abandonment and waiver OF any
and all right of forfeiture which accrued 10 tho
Cuited States, if any ever did accrue, which de-
PENDANT denies.