Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-07-10
Mr.. W. ]. Hughes Makes Reply to
Attorney Thomas.
THE QUESTION OF RAPID TRANSIT
Issue Touching Equipment of E. and
S. H. and Belt Line Roads.
FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER

Mr.. w. ]. Hughes, whose brief submitted
to the Commissioners touching the equip
ment of the lexington and Soldiers Home
and Belt Line railways, respectively, with
rapid transit facilities was recently re-
sponded to by Attorney Thomas, the Dis
trict's legal adviser, has filed another pa
per with the board in replication to the
attorneys criticism, the full text of which
Is at follows:
AS my brief on the question of the ap-
proval of the air motor, filed on behalf Of
the North Capitol and lexington Citizens
Association, was submitted to the attorney
CT the District for review 1 trust may be
permitted to present a short statement in
response to his opinion.
"As to the first point, the denial of the
power of the Commissioners to approve the
air motor, SO far as the Belt Railway Com
pany is concerned. it is immatarial whether
my view or that of Mr.. Thomas is cor
rect, for the result is the same. AS that
company did not begin to equip July l,
1871 1t has not compiled with the law as
construed by Mr.. Thomas, and therefore
there can be no approval.
Mr.. Thomas says nothing upon my. sec
ond point, which is that the action of the
Commissioners is limited to the motor first
tried. His answer refers to my sixth point,
which will be considered later on.
'Rensonnbly Efficient. Clause.
"On the third point, that should the mo-
tor be defective in any respect, 1t must be
dlsproved, Mr.. Thomas states as his opin-
Ion that the motor need not be shown to
be absolutely perfect, but only reasonably
efficient in the judgment of the Commits
sioners. The words used in the act are:
III the said compressed air motors
Shall. In the judgment OF the Commission
ers of the District of Columbia, prove to be
In all respects proper and satisfactory
motive power. for the speedy and con-
venient propulsion of street cars Had
Congress meant that the Commissioners
should approve If they found the air motor
a reasonably efficient motive power, the
act would have said SO, instead of requir-
ing the motors to be in all respects proper
and satisfactory'Ea very much broader re-
quirement. Mr.. Thomas interpolates an ex-
preston and meaning not found In the
statutes. ..-..
The fourth proposition. that the air
motor is still in the experimental stage, Is
not one of law. 1t need only be said in re
sponse to Mr.. Thomas criticism on this
point that such an objection. although II
might be made against almost any motor
could not be sustained. for instance against
the underground electric system Mr.
Ihonas language because the air motor
Is IN an experimental stage is no good rea-
son, l think, why it should not be adopt ed
as motive power. provided it Is sufficient
~ developed to prove in all respects proper
ana satisfactory, Is refreshing. Just how
a motor, which is in the experimental stage
could at the sarne time be sufficiently de-
Veloped TO prove in all respects proper and
satisfactory, cannot be readily understo ood
II 1t Is shown to be proper and satisfactory
in all respects, it is no longer an experi-
ment.
The Provision Mixxtnted
LAS to the fifth point. the removal of the
ri Etnp ton ;,,
proval of the air motor, Mr. Thomas does
not state correctly the provision of section
one of the act of June TO- 1896. That sec
ton provides for "A beginning to eouip'
the portions of the lines which are situated
within the boundaries of the city of Wash
ington with compressed air motors and,
IN the event OF the approval of the motor
directs the Commissioners to issue permits
10 the companies. to equip their lines with
In the District of Columbia Herewith
further requiring that in the event tina [
the compressed air motors are not approved
py the commissioners, the companies shall
construct and put into full operation on
all thelr lines In the city of Washington
the underground electric system
The resolution of February required
by It's first section a beginning TO eouip
the portions of the lines within the bound
ary of the city Of Washington, with air
motors; by Its second section in the event
of the adoption of the air motor. that the
companies should completely equip their
respective lines with such motive power:
anu Dy It's third section the equipment of
the respective lines In the CITY of WASH
lnSton with an underground electric sys-
tenn II compressed air motive power is not
adopted "
what Congress Intended
FROM this 1t is manifest that Congress
contemplated a beginning to eautp and
test OF the air motor on the lines within
the city of Washington and a full eouin-
Hent OF all the lines within the District of
Columbia with the air motor, if adopted
or, an equipment with the underground
electric system within the city of Wash
lhgton' II the air motor should not be
ADOPTED The distinction in the use of the
terms District of Columbia and city of
Washington could hardly be made clearer
than is done in the two acts.
Il entirely agree with what Mr.. Thomas q
says In his answer to my sixth point
which Is, that the time limited for experi-
n.enting with the air motor expired July
1, 1877 He does not, however, meet the
question by his reference to his former
opinion. The act Of June 10, 1896. and the
joint resolution of February 3, 1897 should
be construed together. The former re-
quired % beginning to equip for expert
mental purposes within three months from
Its passage; (2) trial for three months
and c3) a judgment by the Commissioners
as to whether the motor was satisfactory
or not.
Time for Equipment.
1.-THE joint resolution extended the time
for beginning to equip to July 1, 1897 re-
quiring that II the air motor should be
adopted the lines should be completely
equipped Herewith. and that, If not adopt
ed by July !. 1897. the lines should be
equipped with the underground electric
system. If Mr.. Thomas is correct In hold
ing that the effect of the joint resolution
is to extend to July 1, 1907, the period with
in which the companies should begin to
equip, with three months thereafter within
which experiments should be made, the re-
suit follows that the law required % that
the companies should adopt, before july i
1897. an cir motor; (O that they should
experiment thereafter with the motor for
three months, beginning July 1, 1897, and
90 that at the end of the three months
experiment the Commissioners should an
prove or disapprove.
The length OF test mentioned by the act
of June 10 10 three months, extended to
five months by the Joint resolution. Mr.
Thomas construction would extend the
time to eight months. Construed together
the intent Is clear that the Joint resolu.
tion, by it's first and third sections. only
withdrew to July 1. 1897. the limit men-