The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-09-28
RAILWAYS VIOLATING LAW.
The Contention of Mr.. SheckcIIs Re-
gardinR Transfers.


sarding Transfers.
The Commissioners recently informed
r. W. Sheckells, of 65 Street northeast,
that they have been advised by legal coun-
sci that there is no law by which street
railway companies can be compelled to
issue transfers at intersecting points. Not
satisfied to let the matter rest, Mr..
Sheckells has again addressed a letter
to the Board of Commissioners, contend
ing that the Columbia RailSay must issue
transfer TO passengers south on Four
teenth Street.
Il am aware" says M. Sheckells. that
Assistant District Attorney Brandenburg
has rendered an opinion calculated to re-
lieIe the companies of this obligation, but
that opinion, / respectfully submit, is
founded in error, and is without warrant
in law, reason, and equity, and will not
stand the test of judicial examination. His
contention that neither the Great Falls and
J Washington Hallway Company nor the
syndicate now operating all the lines but
the Capital Traction Company has not as
| sumed the obligations imposed by the act
of consolidation approved June ., 1900, can
have no force in determining the obliga
lions OF the several companies under their
respective acts of incorporation and amend
ment thereto.
1T is a well-known fact that the Great
Falls Company technically declined to &C
cept under the act of June g. 1900, because
that act limited its capitalization to $500.
600, while the syndicate-holding company
issued bonds TO the extent of 81 00O. 600,
thus adding Is per cent to its obligations
ant attempting to eyade the explicit ma.,-
date of Congress In a spirit of generosity
! win admit the railway companies may re-
fuse to issue transfers upon transfers, but
l insist that any refusal to issue a transfer
, at intersecting points to a paying passen-
ser is a positive violation of the law. and
should vitiate the charter of each and all
offending companies.
Every act of incorporation passed by
| Congress explicitly reserves the right to
| arrend. alter or repeal. and pursuant to
| this indisputable right Congress has di-
rncted and required all the railways now
operated in the District by .he. syndicate
: to issue transfers TO all paying passengers
at all intersecting points. Even the Capt.
| tai Traction Company must and does issue
| a transfer to connecting Lines on the pay
ment OF 2 cents, as specifically directed by
| Congress.
THE most casual reading Of The Laws
| of Congress Relating TO Railway Fran
chises in the District OF Columbia as we'll
as the act passed March u 1896, and the
act of consolidation approved June 5,
| 1900, will not fail TO convince your honor
| able board that the railway companies
and the railway syndicate have no right to
| refuse and cannot escape the obligation,
| to issue to paying passengers transfers
| at all intersecting points for continuous
| ride. That the erroneous and accommo-
! dating opinion OF the Assistant District
| Attorney is contrary to the law and st
| terly untenable In law will not be con-
| troverted by anyone familiar with the
| several acts of Congress in reference to
| railway franchises, and even the Assistant
| District Attorney would find himself quite
unequal 10 the task of convincing any
court of competent jurisdiction as to the
| soundness of his contention.
| at is a well-known fact that any iIans-
| fer of railway or other corporate franchise
| involves the assumption of all the obli-
| cations imposed under such charter. and
| a new owner Of such franchise must dis
/ charge all the obligations incurred by the
/ original incorporators. By no possible
| subterfuge and under no possible circUm-
stances can a new owner eyade or refuse
to comply with any of the original obli-
| cations.
| "Under the provisions Of section 3 OF the
act OF May Is, 1896. the Capital Railway
| Company and the Metropolitan Railway
| Company and the Capital Traction Com
| pany we're required to issue free transfers
at points OF intersection, so that for the
/ PAYMENT Oh one ldIt pdHStuRtI Ou either
| road should have the privilege OF riding
over both lines. Further. Congress en-
| acted that one fare (six tickets for 25
cents) should entitle a passenger to a
| ride for the entire length of either main
| or branch line thus necessitating a
| transfer free in case of a change from
| a main to a branch or vice versa.
Section 8, act of August 2, 1894, re-
quires the Metropolitan Railway Company
| TO make reciprocal transfer arrangements
with connecting railways, such as the
public convenience may require. Under
| this act the Metropolitan and all other
| lines were required to arrange for re-
| ciprocal trackage and transfers This
action on the part of Congress found
| ed upon the superstition that such an In
| terchange of transfers ana transfer ia
| cilities would prove mutually advan-
| tageous, and, in order that the purpose of
| Congress might not be defeated or evaded.
| il was provided lat failure to reach such
an agreement should be referred to court
| for final and absolute determination.
"Inasmuch as il is not the prer0gative OF
any railway company to refuse compliance
| with Congressional requirement, and mas
much as the obligations of the original in
! corporators rest upon their successors, 1t