Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-04-10
HAVE THE AUTHORITY
THE COMMISSIONERS MAY PERMIT
CHANGES IN RAILWAY PLANS.
Opinion of Attorney DuvalI on Appli-
cation of b. and o. Railway
Company.

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Com
pany was some time ago granted permis-
sion by the District Commissioners, as was
stated in The Star at the time, to double
track the branch road or structure known
az the ~ and connecting the Washing
ton branch of the road with the Metropoli-
tan branch at l street between list and I'd
streets. In preparing to execute the work,
under the permit. 1t was made apparent to
the companys engineers in charge that
both the public and road would be better
served by extending the ~" down and
along 1 street to 18th, than by double track
ing the same between LIST and I'd streets.
BY extending said track down to 9Th
street all trains occupying the 'Y' could.
it was claimed by the engineers. stand upon
said extended track without crossing the
main tracks, and without danger or risk. it
was further claimed, of collision.
The company. therefore, applied for
modification of the permit granted so as to
enable 1t to extend the ~ as stated above.
AT the suggestion of Capt. Beach, the
Engineer Commissioner. the matter was re-
today advised the Commissioners that in
his opinion they are authorized to permit
the desired modification. The question or
the legality of the existing branch or ~
track connecting the Washington and Met
ropolitan branches. states the attorney. was
the subject of adjudication in the District
Supreme Court in the case Of Click against
the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, 10 D. c..
4l2. In this case the court held that the
''Y' was legally located under section II
of the act of Congress OF March ). 1880,
authorizing the Baltimore and Ohio railroad
to locate and construct its road through
certain designated squares in the city.
Use of Streets Granted.
1t was further held by the court that the
board of public works had assented to the
use of the streets in the location of the ~
branch. and that the boards assent was the
act of the District as the successor of the
corporation of Washington. because the
power of assent which was vested in the
corporate authorities had reference, OF
course. to the use Of the streets. When
that power was transferred, says the attor-
ney. by the act of February 81, 1871, by
which the District was made the successor
of the corporations OF Washington and
Georgetown. it was necessarily to be ex-
ercised by the District through the instru-
mentality of the board which had control
of the streets.
In the case of the District against the
Baltimore and Potomac railroad, ia T. S..
453. further states the attorney, the United
States Supreme Court said: THE title to
the streets Of Washington Is In the United
States, and not in the city of Washington
or in the owners of the adjacent lots. 1t IS,
therefore, eminently proper that the right
to use them for any other than the Ordi-
mary uSe Ol StTeelS proceed
Congress.
The court in Click against the Baltimore
ard Ohio railroad, says the attorney. APP
parenty responding to the above cited case
in the United States Supreme Court. said
And here, in answer to the objection that
q municipality cannot grant the of
streets for railroad purposes without ex-
press legislative authority to do so, IT
should be observed that the grant in this
case was directly from the legislature and
not from the municipality. 1t merely de-
pended for its application upon an appoint
ment TO be made by the city authorities
Point of Difference.
THE only point of difference" concludes
the Commissioners legal adviser, between
the present application and the branch
or Y. as passed In the Click case, is that
the branch, under the present application
will terminate in a public street. and will
not extend from the portion of the road to
another portion thereof. but | am unable
to that this constitutes any difference in
principle. The Commissioners stand in the
same relation to the streets the late
board of public works. and l am, there
fore, of the opinion that the Commission
ers have authority to grant the present APP
plcation.'
1t is believed that the Commissioners will
approve this opinion of their attorney, and
that they will permit the Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad Company to make the de-
sired extension.