Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-08-24
Application for Authority to Lay
Railway Tracks.
ANACOSTIA COMPANIES AGREEMENT
Question Of Succeeding to Rights
Of Belt Company.
LINE TO LIE DROIT PARK

ly requested by the Commissioners to ad-
wise them to their authority to grant the
application of the Anacostia and Potomac
Railway Company for a permit to lay
tracks in 4th street from the intersection
of G street northwest with Hardwood ave-
nue., and north on Hardwood avenue to
Elm street. LIE Droit Park. AS stated in
The Star at the time the Commissioners
legal adviser informed them that in his
opinion they were authorized to grant the
application for the desired permit, the An
accstia company. as the purchaser of the
Belt railway, having inherited, he thought.
the rights of the latter company in the
premises. This opinion of their attorney,
however. the Commissioners did not APP
prove. as appears from the following in
dorsement by Commissioner Ross, which
his associates adopted:
Il have read with great interest the care
fully prepared opinion of the attorney for
the District. While the law may possibly
admit of the construction which he gives
to It, do not see how the transferee of the
Belt company can exercise power which
tie Belt company itself seems to have lost
by lapse of time. I would. therefore, deem
1t safer for the Commissioners to refrain
from permitting this extension until di-
rected so to do by a competent court"
The Commissioners. therefore. advised the
Anacostia company that they did not feel
quently, however, Mr.. ]. ]. Darlington, the
attorney for the company, filed with the
Commissioners a brief, in which he con-
tended that the act Of Congress- approved
June "a, 1898, defining the rights of the pur-
chasers of the Belt railway. provided that
the purchasers should possess and enjoy all
the corporate rights, privileges and fran
chises heretofore conferred on the Belt
Railway Company.
Mr.. DarlfnEtOn's Views.
1.-The particular extension in controversy"
argued Mr.. Darlington, was authorized by
the act of June TO- 1896. The principal
purpose of this act was to enable the Belt
Railway Company to substitute new mo-
tive power for horses, IN connection with
which substitution the extension in question
was authorized. The act allows the COM
pany six months within which to discon-
tinue the of horses. but provides that
If the event the proposed air motors then
contemplated should not be approved 1T
to be given further time to equip the
road with the underground electric system.
THE company requiring further time to
avail itself of the privileges in question. the
act of February %, 1897 was passed ex-
tending the time to July 1, 1897. The air
motors not having been found feasible. and
the Belt company succumbing to its financial
difficulties, and being wholly unable to
equip the road with the underground sys-
TEN, Congress passed the act of June "a,
1898, providing for the sale of that road
and enacting that all corporate rights, priv
ieges and franchises Heretofore conferred
on the Belt Railway Company by its orig
inal charter and the acts amendatory there
of and supplemental thereto should pass
to, and be enjoyed by, the purchaser. The
act further required the adoption of the
underground electric system, similar to that
used on the Metropolitan railroad.
object to BE Subserved.
ut will be from the foregoing that
there continuity hetweau these several
acts of Congress, the object throughout
them being to secure a change of the mo-
tive power of the Belt Railway Company.
The section of the act of June 10, 1896,
must be considered a part of this general
purpose, and the entire act is to be read
together. In other words. the section pro-
Viding for the extension in question, both
by reason of the connection shown in the
original act of June 10, 1896. and by it's in
clusion in the several subsequent amend
ments, must be read with and considered a
part of the general scheme for the new
equipment of the road.
ut follows that when, in still further
prosecution of the said purpose, Congress
authorized the sale of the road to pur-
chaser who would make the proposed SUBJ
stitution of motive power, and in this lat
ter provision expressly gave the purchaser
all the corporate rights, privileges and
franchises possessed by the Belt company
under its original charter and under all
acts amendatory thereof and supplemental
thereto. it is respectfully submitted, even
independently of authority, that the only
rational Interpretation of the act is to in
CLUE the extension. which, throughout the
legislation on this subject, was to accom-
pany the substitution of a new motive DOW
er, and is included in each of the amenda-
tory acts which the later act revives and
continues.
Rights Conferred.
"To reach contrary conclusion, the pur-
chasing act of June 81, 1885, read in this |
must be construed as comforting |
on the purchaser the right to make the ex- |
tension in question, and to complete it, |
within one year from the 10th of June |
1896 Such a construction, it is respectfully |
submitted, would not be a rea sonable one !
nor just either to the purchaser or to Con- |
gress. 1t cannot be reasonably held that |
the object of this later act was to confer |
rights already forfeited under time limita-
tions, subject to the forfeiture.
Acts amendatory thereof and supple |
mental thereto'-the phraseology of the |
purchasing act-means all acts that supply |
or contain amendments, or that addi- |
tioral or added to other acts and supply |
what is wanting in the original act
"A case, 1t is submitted. entirely analo- |
gous in principle is that of Turney against |
Wilton, 36 ILL.,, 3S7.
I'm that case a corporation which the
legislature determined to abolish was per- |
mitted to perform sundry and various acts |
in the nature of litigation. among which |
was the right to sue for the collection of |
debts. for which purpose land for none
others) its charter was continued for four
years (and no longer). A later act, passed |
within the four years, but too near their
expiration to afford very much time for
suits, appointed trustees in the place of the |
officers of the corporation to collect the |
debts of the corporation. but did not in
terms extend the time limit prescribed by
the preceding act.
Validity of Foreclosures.
1.-The question was to the validity of
certain foreclosl proceedings conducted
to conclusion by the trustees after the
of the time limit of the first act
Held, that the time limit in the first act,
being insufficient for the acts which the
trustees under the second act were to per-
form, was inapplicabe to them and that |
therefore. no legislative act was necessary
to extend the time within which they were |
TO discharge their duties.
TT is respectfully submitted that the
case under consideration is in every re-
spect as favorable for the construction con-
tended for as the case stated. 1t is incon- |