Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-03-12
METROPOLITAN BILL
Congress Debates the Measure in a
Lively Manner.
Mr.. SAVERS PRGPHESIES DISTRICT Loss
He Thinks if the Bill Passes Judp.
ments Will Fail.
D EFEND Nc THE ROAD

: This was District day in the House, anc
Chairman Heard secured the floor early il
the day. He first called up the bill requir
, ing the Metropolitan Railway Company t.
change its motive power. This is the bill
which was reported to the House last week
Mr. Heard yielded to Mr. Richardson t
, explain the bill. Before he could proceed
however, Mr.. Hopkins of Illinois asked hin
. to tell what effect the bill would have upor
pending litigation against the railway COM
pany.
Mr.. Richardson then proceeded to review
J the history of the company's efforts &c
change its motive power He told of the
efforts of the District committee to arrive
at conclusion upon this bill. The District
Commissioners were heard upon it. the at
torney for the United States was heard and
the whole matter was discussed.
i Was the government attorney heard as
10 the Districts claim of f7,oOO?" asked
Yes; have just stated that" replied
| Mr.. Richardson
We'll. is there anything in this bill to
require the company to pay that claim ~
| persisted Mr.. Hopkins.
Il hope the gentleman wont interrupt
| to come to that"
Then Mr. Richardson proceeded with the
,
It's motive power. He said that within
thirteen days after the expiration of the
law requiring 1t the company did change
| Its motive power to the storage battery
system. He reiterated this whereupon MIR.
| Bynum remarked that the change of sys-
tenn amounted to putting on two cars using
| the storage battery
MI Richardson recalled the fact that
| the company had expended s3S4HN in it's
| experiments and should be given credit for
| an honest effort
The Two Suits.
The committee had no desire to screen
this railroad from the duties imposed upon
1t by Congress" continued Mr.. Richardson.
we were met by the statement from the
government attorneys that there were two
suits pending against the company. Now.
OF course If Congress extends the charter
II VIII be waiver of the first suit"
The suit was dismissed from the Su-
preme Court of the United States on the
bar OF the statute of limitations" sug-
gested Mr.. Hopkins.
Yes, the court held the statute to appIy"
answered Mr. Richardson.
ana the case was not decided on its
merits?' persisted Mr. Hopkins.
NO replied Mr.. Richardson, The mer-
its or the case were not considered"
Mr.. Richardson then explained upon what
grounds the railway company thinks it has
detense against the Districts claim. He
told of the District tearing I'M the ,or,-
pany good pavement and putting down
a pavement which the company did not
want. He insisted that this bill does not
interfere with the pending suit. but the bill
reserves the right of the government in
every respect. He referred 10 the cora;nIt-
tees disposition to compromise the case.
but the Commissioners were not willing TO
compromise II.
Statute of Limitations.
Mr.. Sayers of Texas said that ne has
heard 1t is the opinion of the counsel for the
1DtNf hot =,
its case and the company will walk off with
$4,000.
Mr.. Speaker" said Mr. Sayers. have
never heard that the plea of the sts.nte ~
limitations is claimed as an honest plea TO
an honest debt as between man and man
and l think that when this company comes
10 congress and asks important franchises. |
IL Should be required to do what is right |
ana Just As far as Congress knows there
- d Judgment against the company for Sl4T- |
600. and the only thing against it is a plea |
or the statute of limita tons"
AL this point Mr.. Richardson made |
STATEMENT which seemed to surprise the
House: He said, in his opinion, If the Dis
trlct supreme Court erred in the point of /
the statute of limitations by holding tba, - /
did not apply, it would be fair TO assume
that II was also in error In regard TO the
merits of the case 'e
Derisive laughter from the ,auyor ~.
haa gathered around Mr.. Richardson. greet
ed TINS statement, and Mr. Savers said it
would be equal to assuming that bacauce
t cour, delivered an opinion which was
helu TO be wrong by the higher tribunal
all OF its opinions were wrong
pom the merits of the case I believe
that the company should not have heen
taxed this SlAI,OO0," announced Mr.. Rich
ardson. 'NA
Mr.. Snyers' Phrophccy.
IF the House passes this bill" said Mr.
Sayers, solemnly, without protecting the
interests of the government the povern
ment will never get a cent of that tudg
Well who is looking out for the inter-
asts or the government" said Mr. Richard
son. Here are fifteen members of tbe mis-
lrict committee who are doing the best they
can for the interests of the government"
AFTER this statement Mr.. Richardson
yielded to Mr.. Cooper of Indiana TO MAKE
a brief statement Of the effort for a com.
promise. -''''
Mr.. kyle's View.
Then Mr.. Kyle of Mississippi who is a
plain-spoken man and not much given
to argument. said he wanted to tell how
the case looks to him.
This railroad company comes into Com
gross and says: Here, you give us these
valuable privileges; let the suit go Oh and
II we lose il then we will do what We
ought to have done years ago and paw
the suit p"'
Mr.. Richardson contended that the fault s
Win thlS statement lies in the aSsumption {
mat the company owes the money Mr.. {
Kyle simply suggested that the court had !
ieclded the company does owe the money !
Mr.. Richardson again brought up the mat :
er of the ste te of limitations Mr. |
richardson, in concluding. said that the
newspapers using the pluraD of the city |
had taken very intelligent view of the
and read an extract from one [
PAPER, morning publication, commencing 7
The committees action.
Mr.. Abbott Opposes.
Mr.. Abbott of Texas, a member of the ,
District committee, who does not concur in
Ir Richardson's views, was recognized ,
lie reviewed the history of the litigation,
nd read extracts from the court decisions Y
We have the decisions of two courts of
his District upon the merits of the case"
aid Mr. Abbott, finding that the company
ives this money. The principal point which
5 involved in the case now pending before
he Court of Appeals will be killed by the
PROVISIONS of this bill i am not here for
he purpose of deterTing the company from
hanging its power. but / want to see the
lterests of the government protected He
his firm belief that the govern
1ent has an equitable claim against the 6
ompany for s1i7,0
MIR. Abbott was interrupted several times
" members, who urged that the United
states Supreme Court had showed the
lain out of court because of the bar of
he statute Of limitations, but Mr.. 4 bhott \
net them invariably with the statement A
hat the statute of limitations does not \
fleet the merits of the case nor wipe out !