Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-02-22
An Amendment Submitted by the
Melropolitan's Counsel.
HEARING BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
District Attorney Biney Was ron
the Alert.
BRIEFS TO BE SUBMITTED

ant and Interesting turn this morning. At
the outset move was made by the railway
company in the direction of what is claim
ed would be- virtually, quieting the pro-
ceedings for forfeiture of charter and en-
forcement Of the judgment of S147 .0O0 but
1t was promptly objected to by the United
States district attorney and the attorney
for the District.
The session opened by Mr. Cobb suggest
ing that it might be possible to give the
company the power to put in the under
ground system of trolley, as provided by
the pending bill, and yet so frame the leg
islation that it would not affect the pro-
ceedings now pending in court. He said
he had talked with the company's counsel
and gathered from their remarks that they
would agree to such proposition.
A Proposed Amendment.
Mr. Nathaniel Wilson corroborated him.
and presented to the committee a proposed
amendment to the pending bill. which
would. he said. achieve the desired object
The proposed proviso is as follows:
But nothing in this act shall be con-
strued to repeal much of the act of Con-
Sress Of March ), 1891, as required pay
ment, by said Metropolitan Railroad Com
pany, OF certain monies to the District Of
columbia, upon penalty of forfeiture of it's
FRANCHISE. nor to affect the prosecution of
the pending judicial proceedings to enforce
said forfeiture Provided, however, that
should final judgment be entered in said
sult against said railway company, said
JudsSent may be satisfied and vacated by
payment to the District of Columbia, by
said railway company, within ninety days
after said judgment has been entered, of
the sum of sl4i .05. the entire amount of
the Judgment, together with the costs of
said forfeiture proceedings"
Mere Travesty.
Mr. Thomas, attorney for the District
said that this scheme if it were adopted
would be mere travesty. No court that
he had ever seen would sanction that
Courts do not allow justice to be dealt with
in this way. The only way out of this diff
hculty is to put provision in the bill that
the company shall within a certain time
pay the $l4I,OO0 which it owes to the city
or that its charter shall be repealed. This
would bring a settlement of some kind.
But this committee does not want to ad-
judicate the case of debt between the COM
pany and CITY," interposed Mr.. Heard
Why the Charter should he Forfeited.
''Why do you want to forfeit this char
ter?" asked Mr.. Cobb.
Because the company has violated the
conditions OF its charter, imposed by Con-
gress," answered Mr.. Birney, the United
States attorney.
1hf DHHty CONTINUED tnat the contention
of the government is that there is no cor
poration. and the government is now en-
deavoring to get the court to enter a judg-
ment in accordance with that fact because
the company has failed to perform its con-
tract under the charter. II that contention
be correct the very moment you pass an
act recognizing the existence of the cor
poration you nullify the position of the
government.
Mr. Wilson said that the government is
1 QftannffnR n fhala ifrlra
ings solely to compel the railroad company
to pay that sum of $4,000.
Mr.. Birney said that no opportunity can
be given now to try the question of debt
upon its merits. The company had the
opportunity to do that once and chose TO
avoid the issue and plead the statute of
Limitation.
Mr.. Nathaniel Wilson said the plea of linz
itations is as valid plea of merit as any
thing else
Mr. Cobb's Suggestion.
Mr.. Cobb suggested the advisability of
passing a bill providing that in case the
court decides against the company in the
pending suit solely upon the ground that
the money is due Congress shall recharter
the railroad company upon the condition
that the company pay the s147,OO0 and
change the motive power. Mr.. i3irney
anS hSpsas sha this be ar
said the proviso suggested by Mr.. Wilson
does not go far enough. 1t is ingeniously
contrived to imply that there can be no
repeal of charter The government has no
hope of success in this suit upon the act Of
1891, and is basing its fight upon the act of
1864, and the proviso of Mr.. Wilson is vir-
tually taking the government out Of court,
as concerns action under this, because ii
relates only to the act OF 1891.
In response to a question as to what he
company thinks of Mr.. Cobb's proposition
Mr. Nathaniel Wilson said the company is
willing to pay this money as soon a COM
petent tribunal finds that 1t is due.
You know that no such opportunity can
be presented" said Mr.. Thomas.
A Game of Bluff.
Mr.Wilson said: 1t is submitted by every
body that the only obstacle in the way of
this proposed legislation is the claim of the
city for STAT 600 The claim cannot be en-
forced in any court. Under the law of the
land the Supreme Court has disposed of that
claim. The company asks you to accept
that decision for what it is worth as au-
thoritative upon that point. Is Congress to
constitute itself a new tribunal to try this
case again? The proposition of Mr. Cobb is
not acceptable The company is willing to
pay the $141OO0 when court of competent
jurisdiction finds the amount to be due. To
accept Mr.. Cobb's proposition would be to
ments, because the decision of the lower
court would certainly be appealed to the
United states Supreme Court.
Mr.. Birney interrupted him with the state
ment that the government will rest its case
upon the decision of the Court of Appeals
'Will you do that, also?" asked Mr.. Cobb
of Mr.. Wilson.
The Company VIII Not Accept.
Mr.. Wilson was not prepared to give such
assurance. Mr.. Wilson held that no quicker
method of settling the question can be de-
vised than the proviso which he had sub
mitted.
Mr.. Jere Wilson then addressed the COM
mittee. He said the question of waiver is
one or the most important In the solution
of this matter. The proviso is one which
Congress is perfectly competent to insert
in the bill, one which would protect the in
terests of every one. Under 1t the proceed
ings in the Court of Appeals can go ahead.
That proviso does not operate as waiver
of rights. If the question of waiver is the
only one at issue in the matter of the pro-
viso he is ready to satisfy the committee
that it does not act as waiver.
Mr.. Birney said that but a short time ago
he had heard the railroad company argue
just the reverse; they held that any legis-
lative act recognizing the existence Of the
company acted as waiver.
Mr.. Jere Wilson said Congress can ex-
pressly provide that no waiver is intended
by the action which it takes There can
then be no doubt upon the matter
Briefs to BE Submitted
1t being apparent that there was a divis-
ion of opinion as to whether Congress can