Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-06-20
THE TROLLEY COMPANY LOST.
Governments Gettysburg Condemn
tfon Suit 10 Go On.

Tonne nj ~
tion Suit TO Go On.
In the United States circuit court az
Philadelphia yesterday Judges Dallas and
Butler denied the motion OF the Gettysburg
Trolley Company to quash the petition OF
the United States for the condemnation Of
lard. comprising part of the Gettysburg
oattlefeld In possession OF the Gettysburg
Electric Railway Company, as the trolley
corporation is officially entitled.
The Judges for three hours or more heard
Thomas Hart. 3r. argue In behalf Of the
trolley company. After weighing what he
said. they came to the conclusion that n
was not even necessary to hear United
States District Attorney Ingham make Q
reply to his propositions. but entered an
order against Mr.. Harris clients at once.
The answer 70 the petition OF the United
States was filed prior 70 the beginning Of
the argument. District Attorney 1ngham
ernment's petition for the condemnation Of
the land. while Thomas Hart, Jr.. of counsel
for the Gettysburg Electric Railway Conn
pany. claimed that right on the company's
decided that MI. Hart should begin the
argument
Grounds Of Attack.
Two Of the important grounds on which
the petition was attacked were that the
act OF March 3. 1893. was unconstitutional
and that the court was without jurisdic-
don In the matter. OF the s25.0o0 appro-
priated by Congress, all has been already
expended excepting s9.272.56 Mr.. Hart
said there were fourteen reasons IN the
company's motion to ouash-
Judge Dallas interrupted by saying: Has
the recent resolution OF Congress added to
the reasonsI believe there were not 90
many before" Mr.. Hart replied: Indeed
IL has. and / am very much obliged TO
some one Tor the passing Of that resolu-
lau hon a.
afadavtts TO the effect that the proceedings
are In reality intended to drive the rail-
way from the battlefield. and urged that
otherwise IL would not be found that the
strip Of land proposed TO be taken would
be Just the one that is SO highly necessary
to carry out the Improvement
Mr.. Hart addressed the court upon the
reasons for quashing the petition. He said
they were practically four. The FIRST one
was whether the purposes for which the
property was wanted were. under the law.
public uses; secondly. II they were SO. Il
was proposed TO make a railway In fun
operation therefor: thirdly, the question OF
damages, and fourthly. the effect OF the
provision that there was no liability above
the @.2l2So remaining out Of the $4,000
appropriation. Mr.. Hart here again REFER
red TO the newspaper publications. saying;
Il would not have made the answer filed
nearly 20 long. but / wished IL to contain
explanations which hardly have the right
to make as a lawyer. so that the railway
company will be placed right before the
community" He added that ne RETAINED
from going further. as he might say some
thing that he might be sorry for. Il only
want TO have the company not TO be con-
sidered In wrong light. and have been
unable TO accomplish this purpose by two
communications made to a newspaper"
Then Mr.. Hart went on with his argu-
ment He urged that this was not a case
where the property to be taken was for the
general welfare. nor for public defense.
Numerous decisions were referred to bear
a., ~
lands taken for public uses and others that
were not. Questions OF eminent domain
and Jurisdiction OF the court were then
dwelt upon at great length. Mr.. Hart thsn
said:
Not q National Park.
THE public has not acquired the Get
tysburg ground for q national park The
land has already been acquired by the Me-
mortal Association. nor is Il a case where
national highways are proposed TO be es-
tablished." He then went on to say that
there were 5000 feet OF land in the strip
that was TO be taken, and that this land
was thirty feet wide The ground was
wanted. he said. to place tablets. "Accur.
acy." he added. will be impossible. and 10
cannot therefore be Of service as . military
school"
Mr. Hart then referred to what was done
to preserve the battlefelds OF Chickamauga
and Antietam. which. he claimed. were %
an entirely different kind. He said: Tho
Gettysburg case stands alone" Mr.. Hart,
In speaking OF the passage OF the Joint reso-
luton OF Congress. highly complmcnted
Ser ator Gray of Delaware. as a lawyer. for
the position he took in voting against the
resolution. He, however. commented. with
sarcasm. upon the remarks on the resolu-
ton made by Senator Hin and senator
Henderson.
Speaking of Senator Gray, Mr.. Hart said:
Finally. IL Is interesting TO rote. In this
connection. that SO distinguished a lawyer
~ Senator Gray took occasion to express
himself when the Joint resolution OF June q.
1894 was before the Senate. as strongly OF
opinion against the right Of the government
70 take private property by condemnation
Tor the purposes named In the act Of lSyS."