Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-02-21
new MOTIVE POWER
What the Metropolitan Railroad Co.
Wants to Do.
AN INTERESTING HEARING TODAY
The Status of the Company Brought
in Question.
SEVERAL ARGUMENTS MADE

underground trolley system. Judge Jere
Wilson, Mr.. Nathaniel Wilson. Mr. A. b.
Brown, United States District Attorney
Birney. Col A. T. Britton and President
Stevenson Of the Metropolitan Company
were present
Ine change Of motive power was the
proposition before the committee, but the
discussion hinged entirely upon the claims
OF the District against the company, and
whether the District has a right in equity
against the company for requiring the pay
ment of existing debt.
Mr. Nathaniel Wilson said that the
reasons why the Metropolitan Railway
Company wants this change have been
stated heretofore. and 1t is proposed today
10 meet the objections Of the United States
district attorney.
Proceedings Pending Against the
Company.
MI. Birney thereupon said he was present
10 state TO the committee the present con-
oluon or certain proceedings pending before
the courts to forfeit the charter of the COM
pany- If this bill passes 1t will destroy
these proceedings.
Has this road obtained anything which it
should have paid for and has not?" asked
Mr. Birney said he would state the case
Inc committee could judge for itself The
railroad was compelled, under its charter to
Keep It's tracks in order. This has not been
uone- congress directed that If the COM
Pany did not do the work the District should
DO II and charge it to the company which
mas been done. and the company charged
Win slol,OO. Suit was brought. and a jury
returned verdict of s141 900 The case
went to the Supreme Court of the District
and the court gave Judgment for the COM
pany upon the sole ground that the statute
OF limitations prevailed in the case Con-
subsequently, ed hat he Ind,
ment previously imposed should be maid
within eighteen months or the charter for
!sited- The company failed to comply with
that requirement and the Attorney General
BEGAN forfeiture proceedings.
The case was tried. and Judge Bradley
dismissed the information An appeal was
taken 10 the Court of Appeals, and is now
pending Mr. Birney has since filed a seo
end information for forfeiture of charter
CIon the ground that the COMPANY has
NOT compiled with the act of Congress re-
qulring the company to change its motive
power within certain time.
Waiver of Forfeiture.
In answer to question. Mr. Birney said
ne admitted the claim that il the bill now
proposed Is passed it can be urged as a.
waiver Of forfeiture of charter.
MI Babcock asked IL the courts
rave passed upon the questions of fact. to
whicn MI Birney replied that they have
and found Judgment in accordance In re-.
sponse to a question from Mr. Cobb. Mr.
Birney said that II is true that the court
mas decided that the District has no stand
ins IN court by reason of the operation of
the statute of limitations to recover the
money. but that Congress undoubtedly has
the right to control the charter of the COM
pany and to require compliance with its
act III Is true that the statute of limita-
tion applies only to the remedy; the debt
still exists.
My position is this" said Mr.. Birney.
the charter creates a moral and legal OBJ
70 he
winch has beer expended in its behalf and
Mhlcn should have been paid years ago.
Ihe company mas taken advantage of va
r1ous acts OF Congress to claim a waiver
when In fact no waiver was intended"
MI Richardson suggested that Congress
should settle this case upon it's merits to
which Mr.. Brney agreed.
Col. Inomas, attorney for the District
OF columbia entered the room about this
time and gave a review of the history of
tne hugaton, corroboratins Mr.. Birney.
Col. Britton's Plea.
Col. Britton. in behalf of the company,
said that there were only two acts of Com
gress requiring the railroad company to
pave its tracks, the law Of 1854 recurring
the railroad company to pave its tracks
at It's own cost, which was complied with
absolutely. and the law of 1873 providing
that the District should do the work and
charge it to the railroad company. In
lSIl, while the company had performed its
previous obligations the District legislature
passed an appropriation of $i,OOOUW to
pave streets. Assessments were levied
upon abuttinS property. 1t was then de-
cided that no assessment could be made
against the railroad company In JSIS
Congress passed an act bearing upon this
subject, providing thai parties who
hsd not paid the assessment on grounds
or exorbitancy could file a complaint In
1879 one step further was taken and the
foregoing provision extended To those who
mad paid assessments. but who felt ag-
Nha
railroad company and claimed that an obIi-
cation rests upon the railroad company
by the act of 1871.
Mr. Britton gave the statement of the
companys claims OF fact in the suits which
were brought in the courts.
upon that statement Of fact what kind
OF court was 1t that lost you your case?"
asked Mr. CogSwell.
We'll you can Judge for yourself" an
Uwered Mr.. BrittOn, when a higher tribunal
was organized los cases of appeal came up
and lightweight cases were reversed"
Mr.. Natl Wilson Reviews the Case.
Mr.. Nathaniel Wilson said he had been
attorney for the corporation since it was
bern. in 1864. In so far as the Judgment is
concerned there is none now existing. The
court has decided that the monetary con-
sideration is out Of the way and cannot be
enforced.
Not that the obligation is out of the
way, suggested Mr.. Cobb.
No; not that the obligation Is out of the
way, but the Judgment is
Mr. Wilson reviewed the history of the
company up to 1SI2 and the performance
or the duties required by the charter. The
board OF public works was created in 1871,
ana up to that time the company had COM
plleu with every regulation to paving
Inat fact was admitted by all. In 1872 the
nrSt charge against the company was made
being charge for concrete pavement on
nth street The board of public works re-
fused to let the company have any voice In
The choice of pavements. The board took
up the pavementS and substituted what IL
chose TO put down.
Does not the charter give the District
that right?' asked Mr.. Cogswell
MI Wilson said the charter did not au-
thorlze the board of public works to take
up and put down pavements at all times
without respect to cost or fitness thereof
Ihe board went ahead, however and did
this. ~ "
Ihls suit was not entered upon until 1880
ehd the reason for the delay was that the
authorities believed that they did not have
the right. The board of audit subsequent
Iy appointed. called attention to this nom
sctIpn a. possible admission Of that lack
OF auth y by the authorities.
1T ths organic act of 1873 was the first
statement Of the right of the railroad and
Under -hIs act the District authorities pro-
ceeded AGAINST the company as IL It had been
enacted II IoI2. although the act specifcal-
- pfoslied that II should apply only to
ps'snsats thereafter to be laid. US 20