The Washington times. (Washington [D.C.]) 1901-1902, 1902-04-22
Bill Affecting Leave for
Street Crossing Police
men Fails to Pass.
CAUSES A LIVELY DEBATE
First Time This Session Local Bill Fa-
vorably Reported by District Commit
tee Has Failed to Pass-0ther Meas
ures Affecting the Capital City.

For two hours yesterday the House con-
sidcred District legislation, and nearly all
of that time was consumed b. squabbie
over bill affecting the special policemen
at street railway crossings. The measure
was designed to give these officers twcn-
ty days annual leave of absence, twenty
days sick leave annually. and to enable
them to share in the benfits Of the re-
lief fund. Notwithstanding the fact that
these special policemen are paid by the
street railroad companies. the bill pro-
posed to make their leave chargeable to
the District appropriation. 1t provoked
a long and somewhat lively discussion.
ending in the defeat of the measure by
striking out the enacting clause. 1t was
the first time this session that there has
been any protracted discussion on the
floor of the House OF bills affecting the
District and the first time thst local
measure reported by the District Com
mittec has failed of passage. The dis
cussion at times touched upon the char
acter Of the District government and the
responsibility of corporations and their
obligations to the public.
The Bill Called Up.
Several minor bills were passed with
out debate, and then Mr.. Mudd. who was
in charge of District affairs yesterday.
called up the special police crossing bill
Mr.. Cannon insisted that inasmuch as the
measure placed an obligation upon the
Treasury 1t be considered in Committee of
the Whole Mr.. Pearre, of the District
S0mmittee, explained the bill, and said it
was asyocated by the Commissioners of
the Districts~and contended that it simply
placed the crossing policemen upon the
same basis as the regular metropolitan
police force
Mr.. Cannon said it was his understand
ing that the members of the regular po-
lice force did not get twenty days sick
leave II addition to their annual leave
and he did not believe that the special
policemen should have any advantage over
the regular force. He made the further
point that the bill was calculated to
throw the expense for the leaves OF the
special policemen upon the District in
stead of upon the railroad companies in
whose employ the officers are engaged.
and which pay them their regular sal
aries. He thought the leave ought to be
paid for by the companies
Mr.. Pearre, in reply. said that these Of
ieers not only rendered service for the
companies. but for the public as
well. They have full police power, he
said; are commissioned by the District
ComG1fssioners, and are under the author
ity>and regulations of the Major and Su-
perintendent of Police
Mr.. Cannon asserted that their service
was primarily for the companies and in
for the people He asked Mr..
Pearre why he did not advocate a meas
ure to have the District pay tor the an
nual leaves of the motorrpen and Gen.
ductors. who were 10 more employees of
the railway companies than were the
crossing policemen
Mr.. McDe-mott's Protest.
Mr.. MeDermqsf, who is the receiver for
the Washington Traction Company. asked
why the railroad companies of Washing
ton should be compelled to pay for po-
lice service
n am unable to explain that" said Mr..
Pearre. Il only know that the bill pro-
viding for these crossing policemen was
introduced by a distinguished Democrat,
sir. German, and never knew the reason
for it,
Then, as I understand it," said Mr..
the only reason you can as
ign for it Is that it was proposed by
distinguished Democrat"
Mr. Pearre said that he would not ad-
nit it was, an injustice upon the rail-
way companies. He thought it was quite
light and proper. He did not believe it
burden. The men were capable and eff
.ient, he said. aud earn three times the
1ittance which the companies pay them
rhe Commissioners had recommended the
passage of the bill.
MIR. Finley asked Mr.. Pearre if he would
submit to an amendment providing that
he railway companies should pay the ad-
iitional expense of leave. Mr.. PearTe said
i would impose an additional burden upon
he railway companies and he would OPP
pose it.
Opposed by Mr.. Cowherd.
Mr.. Cowheri, a member of the District
Committee. opposed the bill. He said he
thought it was going far enough for the
District to dictate whom the railway COM
1anies should appoint without requiring
hem to grant leaves of absence.
He thought that Congress should not
,blige the companies to grant leave TO
is policemen. who were no more than
7atchmen. except that they had commits
ions, any more than it should require
hem to grant leaves TO motormen and
onductors. He certainly objected. he
aid. to the District and the United States
,aying for the leaves of men IL the chi
hoy OF private corporations, as the pend
ng bill proposes to do.
Mr.. Cowherd further criticised the relief
und section of the bill, saying it would
cad to final pension of these men, who
we're servants of private corporations. in
tead of the public.
Continued Fifth PaSc.)