Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-07-17

Ralston presented it to Judge Cole. asking
that rule to show cause be issued against
MI Peck States that he is resident and
property owner in Anacostia. and refers
to the following extract from the act in
cooperating the road:
LIVERY such corporation shall start and
run their cars for the transportation of
persons and property at regular times. to
be oxed by public notice. and shall furnish
sufficient accommodation for the trans
portation Of such passengers and property
as shall at reasonable time thereto have
been offered for transportation at the place
Of starting and at the junction Of other
railroads and at sidings and stopping
places Established for receiving and dis
charging way passengers and property at,
from. and to such places on the due pay
nept of tolls of fares
THE petitioner asserts that President
'Griswold of the company has been fire.
quently requested and urged to resume the
running of the cars, and reference Is made
to O late report of the company, in which
II appears that 4.134 passengers are daily
carried over the road, and the petitioner
asserts that nine-tenths Of them are to and
buses has been established since the dis
continuance OF the cars, but 1t Is alleged
that the buses carry not more than 1000
passengers day, and the conclusion is
therefore. the petitioner believes, that more
than 1900 people are daily Inconvenience
by the refusal of the company to run its
SeAS. bSSiAtS, II Is CiditHca tHdt the us
continuance of the cars requires the pay
ment of two fares. 1t Is also asserted that
the real estate of the petitioner and that
of others in Anacostia Is being damaged
and deprecated In value by the failure of
the company to run Its cars.
Judge Cox's Doubts.
After Mr.. Ralston had read the petition
to Judge Cole this morning. and had asked
that rule issue against the company re-
quiring 1t to show cause why the man
damus should not be granted. Judge Cole
stated that he was of the opinion that the
petitioner had not made such a showing
as entitled him to even rule to show
cause.
Mr. Ralston thought otherwise. arguing
that the company should at least be re-
CURED to answer.
But remarked Judge Cole Suppose
should Issue rule against the company
and the company should then demur. would
l thea be justified in granting the man
damus?'
II think so. your honor" replied Mr.
II do not" said Judge Cole. "and be-
Heve that If I should the Court Of Appeals
would not hesitate In overruling me. The
question at issue Is this: Has the court
the right and power to compel the COM
pany to run its cars? While do not know
s SO ]udiciai ny ! think the fact is that the
out loss. At least, so understand Hence
the question is, Can I compel the COM
pany to do soI do not see that can
nor do feel that I would be justified in
Issuing a rule to show cause"
Mr. Raiston prayed that he be given an
opportunity to submit certain authorities,
which, he believed. would convince the
court that the petitioner was at least en-
titled to the rule to show cause, and Judge
Cole granted him the opportunity, stating
that he would decide the matter later in
the day.
Judge Cole Refuses.
Judge Cole this afternoon disposed of this
case, at least for the present. by refusing
to grant the rule to show cause. He allow
ed Mr.. Ralston to amend the petition. and
the amended petition will probably be
presented to Judge Cole tomorrow morning
In disposing Of the matter Judge Cole
stated that the petition alleges the forma-
ton OF the company under the general
Incorporation act and three special acts
OF Congress: and the petition alleged by
inference. Ii not directly, that the COM
pany have failed to operate the road since
the 5th of this month.
The prayer of the petition was, explain
ed Judge Cole that upon such statement
OF facts the company be compelled by
mandamus to resume the operation of the
road. Citing New York case, which he
considered conclusive in the present in
stance, Judge Cole stated that under the
acts referred to only permission to con-
struct and operate the road was given the
company. The company might or might not
struct it within the prescribed time, it. of
course, lost its corporate privileges. But it
seemed clear to him, remarked Judge Cole,
that the company could not be compelled to
either cons truct the road, or, after it's con-
struction be compelled to operate 1t. But
should the company operate but a part of
the road, there was no doubt of the power
of the court to compel 1t to operate the
whole of 1t, or discontinue the whole Of il.
1.-THE company undoubtedly has he right
to abandon the operation of the ri" said
nj al t.yrft 1,A
in full. So, too. the company can be COM
PEELED to provide clean and serviceable cars,
and run Its road in an acceptable manner;
for as long as the road is operated at ALL 1t
must be operated in conformity with the
requirements of the law and the intention
Of Congress-"
But Judge Cole thought that the petition
did not make such a showing as entitled
the petitioner to even rule against the
company to show CO Sc. The writ of nan
damus is not matter of right, nor is the
issuance of the rule to show cause he re-
marked but are matters addressed to the
sound discretion of the court. There being
no obligatory duty on the part of the COM
pany to operate the road. the company hav-
ing the right to abandon at any time, the
petition would have to be dismissed but II
leave to amend 1t was desired that would
be granted.
Within Jurisdiction.
Mr.. Ralston stated to the court that since
this morning he had received information
that the company was today operating
few hundred yards Of the road. AS that
would bring the matter within the juris-
diction of the court, Mr.. Ralston stated
that he would amend the petition by so
showing, and would then again apply for a
rule to show cause why the writ of man.
damus should not be granted. The amended
petition he hoped to be able to present to
the court tomorrow morning. Judge Cole
granted the leave desired. and the case will
probably be heard again tomorrow.
DISTRICT GOYERNAIENT