Evening star., 1897-02-10
THEY MU ST STOP
Railroad Trains and Their Crossing of Street
Gar Tucks.
Court of Appeals tphclds the Police
RegulntiOns-Thc Decision
of Judge Shepard.

In long opinion. written by Mr.. Justic.
Shepard, the Court. Of Appeals, late yester-
day afternoon held that the police regula-
tions requiring steam railroad companies
to stop their trains before passing street
railroad crossings are valid and must be
obeyed. " -~er.f
The matter came before the Appellate
Court on appeals noted by the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Company and the Bal
timore and Potomac Railroad Company.
whose engineers had been convicted in the
Police Court Of failing to obey the regula-
tions. The men were fined, and in default
were sentenced to the workhouse. There
upon they sued out writs of habeas corpus,
claiming that the regulations were invalid.
Judge Cole refused to release them, sus-
tanning the Judgment of the Police Court
whereupon the men appealed to the Court
of Appeals. Meantime the railroad COM
panes had sought to obtain an injunction.
restraining the enforcement of the reguid-
tions, but Judge Cox refused the inJunc-
ton, on the ground that criminal proceed
ings cannot be enjoined. The companies
also appealed from his decision.
The railroad companies contended In the
lower courts that the Commissioners had
no authority to enact such regulations;
that they were unreasonable and opprcs-
sive. because they would cause ruinous de-
lays to interstate commerce and IN the
transportation Of passengers and mails:
that by reason of heavy grades, curves.
&c, near crossings, ordinary trains could
| not be stopped and started in the time re-
quired, and hence, by reason of trains ly-
ing across more than one street at time.
the companies, in obeying one regulation
would be subject to penalties for ObStruct-
ing crossings. 1t was also claimed that all
the dangers supposed to be avoided by the
regulations were fully guarded against by
no W. n6 al haIl n.
ready provided.
In disposing of the appeals the Court of
Appeals says that the acts permitting the
companies to enter the city contain no ele-
ment of a grant or contract: it lis a res
ervation, wholly unnecessary, that seems
to have been inserted out of abundant eau
! ton. We find nothing in its language eX-
pressive of an intent to reserve the exer-
else of such power to Congress. by direct
act exclusively or TO preclude it's delega-
ton, by reasonable application, to the or
binary municipal authorities of the Dis
trict.'
The court holds that the power of the
District Commissioners to regulate the
movement of trains in the city was con-
ferred upon them by the joint resolution
of February &c, 1892, author zng the COM
Ilissioners to make and enforce all such
reasonable and usual police regulations as
may be deemed necessary for protection
OF llfe and property. Ard in this conHec-
tion the court says: I'VE think it clear that
Congress, intended to increase the powers
OF the Commissioners to the full extent of
those frequently intrusted to municipal
corpora tions. The grant of the DOW
er to make usual and reasonable public
regulations was expressed in the broadest
TERMS"
Tie court refers to the fact that regula-
tioEs requiring steam railroad trains to be
stopped before crossing other railroads are
usual in other cities. ard their reasonable
Eess has always been upheld, although
what may be a reasonable requirement in
one case cannot be determined by fixed
lule. but must depend on special 'crcum-
stances. Such regulations may be incon-
venient and oppressive, in q certain sense
but it does rot follow that it must be de-
clared beyond the power of the Legislative
authority In case where the question OF
the invasion of private rights is one Of
practical fact unsettled by experience, a
court should surely hesitate to set up its
judgment IL opposition to the observation
and experience of the municipal officers,
who ought to be well informed and capable
OF arriving at satisfactory conclusions
Referring to the contention of the rail-
road companies that the regulations are
unreasonable. the court remarks that had
Trey undertaken to obey the regulation in
good faith and given it's operation a fair
test before engaging in litigation, we might
have had abundant evidence by which the
question of reasonableness could be readily
determined As it is we have no satisfac-
tory proof that would Justify us in over
ruling the acton of the Commissioners -
In conclusion. the court says that if the
regulations conflict the Commissioners
would no doubt so amend them as to re-
move the alleged difficulty. Finding no
error in the proceedings below. the court
holds that the defendants were duly con-
victed under valid law and must abide the
Judgment of the Police Court. The court
a'so sustains the judgment of Judge Cox.