Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-03-03
Briefs and Arguments in the Metro
politan Railroad Case.
THE THREE COMPROMISE PLANS
Mr.. Stephenson Tells of the Rail.
roads Different Efforts.
CONTINUED UNTIL TUESDAY

The Metropolitan Railway Company hear
ing was continued before the House District
committee this morning. The government
was not represented in person before the
committee. but the District Commissioners
submitted an official statement which Is
printed in another column.
The railway company was represented by
President VIM. j. Stephenson. MIR. Jere
Wilson and Mr.. Nathaniel Wilson. Mr..
Stephenson also submitted a statement in
behalf OF the company, as follows:
THE Metropolitan Railroad Company has
spent nearly $4OO.OOo in an honest effort to
put upon it's lines one of the three systems
OF rapid transit prescribed by the acts OF
Congress of 1889 and 1880. 1t has shown
10 the committee that neither the cable
nor the storage battery systems are me-
chanically or commercially practicable upon
its crooked road. 1t asks reasonable ad-
dition of time within which to construct
an underground system of propulsion, being
the third system prescribed In the acts
supra.
THE sole objection made in the briefs Of
the attorneys for the United States and for
the District of Columbia Is that the pro-
posed extension of time will operate as a
waiver of pending forfeiture proceedings
growing out of certain disputed monied
claims of the District against the railroad.
Conctsely stated, the briefs of these attor-
neys concede that the District has no pend
Ing or possible status in any court for the
recovery Of those pretended claims; and
they also concede that the act of Congress
of March 3. 1891. attempting to set aside
the decision of the United States Supreme
Court In favor of the company, and 70 re-
quire the company to pay the full amount
OF the rejected claim. is void and that
the pending forfeiture suit Hereunder
cannot be maintained Bat in effect
they contend that the company justly owed
the District the moneys in question; that
eSCaDl1 ODlV he 9ta T.
ute of limitations; and that Congress should
use the pending application for an extern
sion of time as a club with which to extort
payment OF the outlaWed District claim
These briefs beg the question. They erro-
neously assume that the railroad ever
Justly owed the District a penny. They
fail 70 state a single fact in support of that
assumption"
At this point there follows an exhaust
i've and detailed review of the history of
the litigation. which has been heretofore
In conclusion. Mr.. Stephenson says:
His Conclusions.
II have endeavored to make a frank and
concise statement of the facts of this pre-
tended District claim. Thereupon, and con-
sidering the shadowy and disputed char
scter of the said claim; considering its an
Gent date and its rejection by the final
Judgment of the highest court, OF this coun-
try; considering that Congress, by the act
d
form of District government settled these
cisputed questions of policy by prescribing
with complete exactness the future rights
and duties of the street railroads and of
the District authorities. respectively, con-
oerning the pavement of the railroad spaces;
Considering that since that act of 1878 this
Railroad company has paid the large sum
OF S233.2lO.11 for such street pavements
upon It's route; considering that the COM
pany has expended the further large sum
OF $4,000 in an honest but unsuccessful
effort to put upon it's road storage bat
terry system; considering that the company
Is now Offering to eXpend some millions
OF additional dollars in putting into opera
ton an underground system Of propulsion,
which Will add largely to the convenience
and to the taxable values of the District
j respectfully submit that the credit of this
company ought not to be crippled, nor its
raising Of the necessary large sums be en-
barrassed, by such unusual legislative
amendments will, in effect, declare that
IL we do not pay a stale and rejected claim
of, at best, doubtful origin, and at the in
stance of a defeated litigant. We shall be
denied the opportunity to make our pro-
posed rapid transit improvement. and our
property shall be cOnfscated. The owners
~ our 14.OOO shares of stock, holding in
SAe average proportion of less than sixty
shares TO each holder. are confident that
Congress will treat their application for
extended time with entire fairness and
Justice.
IF, however. your honorable committee
are OF the opinion that there ought to be
added to our bill either of the amendments
heretofore submitted by this company and
intended to meet fairly all the different
views which may be reasonably anticipated
either in committee OF upon the floor Of the
House, then l respectfully submit that so
Tar. as the wishes of this company may
with becoming propriety. be suggested for
your consideration. our preference for those
amendments would be in the following
order of sequence"
Here Mr.. Stephenson quotes the three
propositions for compromise which were
submitted to the committee last week and
published in The Star and discussed there
Proposition One.
He says: This Cthe first proposition)
would leave the District. the United States
and the company unaffected in their exact
present relations to each other before the
courts. with the single modification that
final judgment Of forfeiture could be avoid
Cd by payment of the entire amount Of the
District claim within ninety days from the
rendition of such Judgment. / am advised
that this provision would not be construed
as legislative waiver, except upon the
monted payment specified, because, whilst
tIter right OF forfeiture has accrued. legis-
tative acts extending franchises or confer
ring new rights or privileges are construed
As evidences of legislative intent to waive
forfeiture. yet there must be reasonable
intended a waiver OF forfeiture, and no such
presumption can exist in the face Of an
express legislative declaration to the con-
trary.
Testing the Merits.
While our preference is for this
amendment and while 1t leaves the pend
ing litigation wholly unaffected. 1 am not
onmindful Of the possibility that it may
oe Claimed by some that final judicial
determination OF the merits of the District
eIairn ought to be had. II that view pre-
van tnen the fact should not be lost sigh:
" that the statute Of limitations being
sAihlhated the railroad company was en-
uued oy the laws of the land to the judg-
SlehI OF the appellate court upon the al
teged errors OF law in the rulings of the
Ulal court, which left the jury no other
C,screuon :, than 70 return a verdict against
we company. In that possibility we have
-AtliIttsd 10 you and Indicate our second
Hieier eiIce for the following amendment
M-4-SH provides for such trial upon the
IleLlts before the Court of Appeals for the
$3.50 upon the same pleas and proofs in
~. nIe IoT'ner record, excepting the statute of
- EElLIt@uohs- L am also advised that while
Soi-sEeSs might not lawfully impose such
- upon the Supreme Court of the
tHeS Cteu states. whose Jurisdiction Is of con-
s4'ulIohaI origin, no such objection obtains
=. cases OF courts OF purely statutory
Money Compromise
81 ana finally. 1 do not overlook the
WH