Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-11-07
THE COMPANY WINS.
First Round of the Governments
Fight With the Metropolitan.
JUDGE BRADLEY'S RULING TODAY.
Demuners FiIeA by the District
Attorney Overuled.
THE POWER OF CONGRESS.

Judge Bradley this morning overruled the
governments demurrer to the plea entered
by the company in the case OF the United
States vs.. the Metropolitan Railroad Com
pany of this city. In this case the govern
ment sought to secure the forfeiture of the
company's charter because of the failure of
the company to pay judgment of sl47. .15O.G5.
recovered May /, 1884. by the District against
the company as the result of the company's
failure during the years ls1 and 1875 to
pave between its tracks and adjacent there
10. Judge Bradley's ruling this morning was
q decision In favor OF the company.
The decision was a very long one and re-
cited at great length the proceedings in
sututed by the government against the
company under the act OF March g. 1881,
which directed the government to institute
proceedings for the forfeiture of the gov
ernments charter If the company within
eighteen months time failed to pay the
Judgment and costs with interest thereon.
Reviewing the Case.
The Information alleged said Judge Brad
ley, two grounds of forfeiture. One the
alleged neglect to do the paving required
by the fourth section of the act Of incorpo-
ration during the years 1Sn and 1875, and
the failure to pay the District the amount
expended for labor and materials in doing
the work which the defendant company
should have done; the other, the failure Of
the company to pay the Judgment, costs
and interest within the eighteen months
from the approval of the act of March 8,
1SSl. On the part of the company IL was
claimed that there was a waiver by sub
seQuent legislation of these alleged grounds
OF forfeiture, and the want of power and
authority in Congress to make the require
ments contained in the act of March 3.
1891.
The demurrer of he government to the
companys plea admitted the truth of the
pleas. and therefore the subsequent legisla-
ton pleaded In the several pleas waiving
the breaches of the conditions of the char
ter OF defendant was admitted to have been
enacted with full knowledge of the alleged
breaches
The act Of June IL. 1873. required the rail-
way companies of the city to bear the ex
pense of paving between their rails and for
two feet outside of them, and upon the
neglect of the companies to do the work
authorized the District to do 50 and issue
certificates of Indebtedness against them.
Eject of Subsequent Legislation.
The act of March 2. 1891, authorized street
railway companies using horse cars to
substitute other motive power and If they
failed for two years to exercise the privi-
lege given they should relay their rails with
a nat grooved rail laid level with the sur
face Of the street. and upon their failure
TO do 50 the District was authorized to is
sue additional certificates of Indebtedness
against the company.
The act of August g. 1890, authorized the
company to issue stock to cover the cost
of changes In their motive power. and d.
rected a forfeiture of their charters upon
the failure to do 50 within two years time.
This time was extended by a joint resolu-
tion OF July p. 1892, for one year from that
date. and provided for a fine not exceeding
IS for each day the company should be in
default
These acts recognize specifically the rights
and liabilities under their provisions of the
company to perform the requirements of
the acts. and 1t was unnecessary, said the
court, to consider whether the alleged
breaches Of duty to pave and keep in repair
during the years 1871 and 1875 were waived
by the general change of form of liability
imposed by the subsequent acts. 1t may be
conceded that 1t did not amount to a waiver
by reason Of the failure to mention the de-
fendant as an existing corporation. and yet
the question remains as to the effect of
the act Of August 8, 1890, and the Joint reso-
luton of July %, 1892
gust ., 1870. as having been intended to
apply to the defendant company, recognizes
the fact that the company has been en-
oeavoring to change its motive power to
electric storage batteries and gives 1t
an additional year within which to increase
ITS capital stock to cover the cost of change
AND TO complete the new equipments and by
failure to mention the subject comedies that
tne defendant had changed it's rails in ac-
cordance with law. This Joint resolution
was subsequent to the act of March 3. 1891,
anu pnor TO the expiration of the lmita-
tion OF eighteen months within which pay
ment was required to be made
~ s Claimed In behalf of the United
States that the obvious purposes of the
resolution is to confer these additional
privileges upon the defendant, provided
II compiled with the requirements of the
ACT Oh March 3. 1881, and that the solution
and act are consistent with each other.
II would appear. however that an absolute
Ilsnt was conferred upon the defendant
TO maintain its road and continue its ex-
psndttures In the change of eouipment for
one year at any rate and that for default
IN equipment during that year and before
eighteen months II would be subject as an
existing corporation to a fine not exceed
ing IS FOR each day SO In default and that
the resolution with its rights and priyi-
leges Is entirely inconsistent with the pre-
Sfous acts and its penalties: that the two
cannot can eoexist. coneede that the resolu-
the repeal Of the act of March 8. 1881. Vet
II interprets the act Of August g. 1890 and
IN terms applies It to the defendant. so in
1880. recognised the defendant as an exist.
ing company.
A Clear Waiver.
This recognition OF the existence and the
responsibility OF the defendant and the con-
ferring Of new rights and privileges upon IT
was q clear waiver Of the alleged breaches
Ok CouoluOuS Oh tne years lou ana 1915, and
of the breaches Of charter duly, IL It NAV
be correctly 10 termed. In failing to repay
the District the amount expended on its
account
II such waiver. said Judge Bradley were
enectual on August s, 1880, the claim of the
government that the act of March 3, 1891
was an act of grace upon the part Of the
government extending the time within
whicn the defendant might repair the
breacnes by making payment of an amount
equtabiy due the District. must fail. For
tnat act had no occasion to extend grace
the penalty for the sin having been remitted
oy implication The act. however. made
no attempt to be gracious. 1t dogmattcally
oecareo an obligation fixing a limit of time
NEhin which performance must be made
ana imposed the penalty of absolute forfeit
ofe IN Default 1t created no obligation or
pSeeended to do so appeared plainly from
She Information, II requiring the payment
~ he company Of a Judgment that had
Deen reversed by the Supreme Court Of the
United States
The Governments Claim.
IL was Claimed by the government that
knls reversal by the Supreme Court is mere
~ based upon the statute of limitations:
tnat IL did not touch the legal OBLIGATIONS
Of the defendant; that 1t only affected the