Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-10-31
THE METROPOLITAN CHARTER.
The COmpany's Demurrer In the
Second Forfeiture Case.

The COmpany'B Demurrer In the
Second Forfeiture Case.
Pending Judge Bradley's decision in the
matter of the suit instituted by the gov
eminent In December last against the Met
ropolitan Railroad Company, praying the
forfeiture Of the company's charter because
of its failure to pay, under the provisions
of the act Of March 3, 1881, the amount of
its alleged Indebtedness to the District of
Columbia on account OF the paving be-
tween and about the tracks Of the company
by the District during the years lsil-I5
the company yesterday filed a demurrer to
the information recently filed by the gov
eminent against the company. in which
the government asks forfeiture of the
companys charter because Of the COM
panys failure to substitute other than
horse motive power on its roads. as requir-
Ell nv the act Of August 6, 1880. and July Y,
1882.
The two informations filed against the
company, while praying for the same tnlns'
the forfeiture of the company ehaI'er:
are in other respects quite independent OF
each other. In demurring to the second
information yesterday the company
saws the government ought not TO
trouble it by reason OF the premises IN the
information, for the reason that the m
formation and matters contained therein
are insufficient in law. and ask that the IN
formation be dismissed and the company
discharged from further proceedings under
II. The company alleges as special reasons
for SO praying that 1t does not appear
from the information, and 1t is not charged
thereby that the corporate franchises OF
the company are forfeited or are subject
to forfeiture under or by reason Of the
provisions Of the acts of August 6. 1880,
and July q, 1892, nor does it appear from
the information that the provisions of the
acts respecting the forfeiture Of the COM
To
pany; that the act Of August 6. 1899. ap-
plies only to those corporations which
awaited themselves Of the privileges of Is
suing and selling stock to cover the cost of
making changes in their motive power, II
not being alleged that the company did
avail itself OF the privileges or any of
them: that the act is inapplcab.e to the
company, being unconstitutional, inopera-
tive and void, and that the information is
in other respects uncertain, informal and
insufficient.
Future Proceedings.
This demurrer will have to be argued, 1t
being incumbent upon the government to
show, of course, that the contentious con-
tanned therein are not true, and the argu-
ment will, in all probability, be deferred
until after Judge Bradley shall have rem
dered his decision in the matter Of the first
information. Judge Bradley stated to
Star reporter today that he was unable to
state when he would be ready to render his
decision. but 1t is presumed that the de-
cision may be expected in week or two.
Should Judge Bradley decide in favor of the
government the second Information could
hardly be pressed, as there would in that
event be no charter to forfeit. But should
the company be sustained it would then be
in order for the government to press the
second information, or appeal. Indeed, an
appeal might be taken as to the first infor-
nation by the government, and. pending a
decision on appeal, the second information
might be pressed.
1t is also understood that should the court
decide that the effect of the act of March
8. 1891. was to repeal the charter of the
company. and, in fact, did repeal the char
ter, and that no judicial declaration Of the
repeal was needed. the government might
take an altogether different step by going
into the Equity Court and praying that
the company be entoined from carrying on
its business. In taking such a step the
government would. however. be compelled
to satisfy the court that the company's
charter having been repealed 1t possessed
no legal authority to continue its business