Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-06-12
UNION STATION BILL
Its Consideration by House
District Committee.
TESTIMONY ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH
ROADS HEARD.
The Position Of Each Toward the
Measure Fully Stated-Sone
Questions Asked.
TESTIMONY ELECTED

The union station bill was discussed from
1870 to II O'Clock this morning before the
House committee on the District of Co
lumbia by citizens of Washington interest
ed in that measure. This was the initial
consideration of this important District
measure by the House committee, and the
committee room was taxed to its full ca
pacity to accommodate those who wished
to be heard and to hear.
A large line map of the section of the city
through which the railroad passes, showing
change of route and location of the new
station. was in evidence, also drawing of
the proposed new station.
AS soon as the meeting had been called to
order. Mr. John P. Green, first vice presi-
dent of the Pennsylvania railroad was in
troduced by Mr.. Babcock as the first wit
ness.
Position of Pennsylvania Road.
Mr.. Green stated that the proposition to
elevate the tracks and provide better ter
minal facilities had been a line question for
thirty years. He said the position from the
standpoint of the railroads had been most
admirably stated by Senator Mcmillan in
the report on the bill to the Senate. He
read that statement, which indicated that
the roads had no initiative interest in the
matter. However, he declared the roads
had a pride in erecting here a handsome
terminal. The present station on the mall
because of its crowded condition, was, he
said, almost disgraceful.
Mr.. Green said that it was going to in
crease the cost to the roads under the item
of terminal facilities from the present cost
of 40 cents a ear to $120 car. This, he
explained, would be the actual cost to the
roads of ma intaining the proposed large
Ii ma
tering the station.
The Pennsylvania road was about to
spend S4O,G0O00O for terminals in New
York. The road. he said could get into
New York for much less, but the company
was considering the esthetc features, and
did not think it right to treat New York or
Washington in any but the best way.
Mr.. Green reviewed briefly the history of
the terminal legislation, and said that the
present plan was going to cost the roads
S3,otCD more than the bill of 1901, which
provided for two terminal stations. He eX-
planned in detail the cost of the proposed
Improvement, which footed up for the
Pennsylvania road alone to $S,0OJ,090.
Some Questions Asked.
Mr.. Sims asked Mr.. Green if the plans
provided in the bill of 1901 would be car
ried out should the present bill fail of pas
sage.
To this Mr.. Green replied that the pres
ent conditions made it absolutely neces-
sary that something should be done at
once.
Would you be satisfied to have this bill
cut off behind the ears as Mr. Cannon sug-
gested in the House the other day regard
ing another measure?' asked Mr.. Mudd.
If you had asked me a year ago l should
have said yes" replied Mr.. Greene. But
we have gone ahead, and now We believe
that this bill IS right
Mr.. Mercer asked if New York as a city
was paying any of the $4,000 900 the road
was to pay to get into that city. The reply
was that no assistance was given by New
York in the shape of money, but the city
had given the road the right to tunnel un-
der her streets, the road to pay. only d
small rental.
Mr.. Cowherd asked If 1t was not true that
the road here was not given the use of the
streets without any rental and without even
being credited with this contribution
Mr.. Green replied that when the road first
came into Washington the city was very
glad to give 1t the use of its streets.
Mr.. Cowherd said he merely wanted to
call attention that no credit was given to
Washington for the streets which it gave to
the roads. He also called attention to the
fact which Mr. Green acceded to, that
neither Chicago nor st. Louis paid the roads
anything toward getting into those cities
1t was very difficult, Mr.. Green replied to
get any sort of concessions out of New
York, Chicago or St. Louis.
just before Mr.. Green concluded he was
asked by Mr.. Cowherd If there would be
any objection to a substation Just at the
city end of the Long bridge, to accommo-
date Virginans who work in the city.
Mr.. Green said there was no objection to
this in his mind
As to the B. and o. Road.
Mr.. George E. Hamilton, attorney for the
Baltimore and Ohio road, was heard next.
He said that his road at first was against
the proposed plan. 1t set their terminal
back farther, and seemed at first not as ad-
vantageous as the plan of 1901. This opinion
mad changed and the Baltimore and Ohio
was now in favor of the legislation
An emphatic denial was made, both by
Mr.. Hamilton and by Mr.. Green that the
Pennsylvania and Baltimore and Ohio roads
were under the management Of the Penn
sylvania road.
This question was asked by Chairman
Babocck, who said II had been stated that
the Baltimore and Ohio road was against
the proposed union station because it was
the intention to make freight line of the
Baltimore and Ohio, while the Pennsyl-
Vanla would take the passenger traffic
Mr.. Green stated that the Pennsylyan MIA
road did not own the majority of the stock
Of the Baltimore and Ohio. and had only
four of the thirteen members of its board
of directors AS to the charge that the
Pennsylvania was to take the passenger
traffic he said there was no truth in the
statement
III reply 10 question by MI. COWherd
as to what was the difference in the cost
to the Baltimore and Ohio under the pend
ing bill and the old bill, and the difference
in amounts to be paid by the District and
government to the, road.
The additional cost to the road is $500
COO while there is no addition in the
amount to be paid the Baltimore and Ohio, -
replied Mr.. Hamilton.
Turning to section II of the bill which
provides that if any of the railroad COM
panfes shall refuse omit to ACCEPT the
legislation within ninety days after its pas
sage then the provisions of the act shall
become null and void. Mr.. Mudd wanted
to know why such a section was inserted
in view of the fact that both roads had in
dorsed the bill.
Mr.. Hamilton replied that the bill as II
stood now was acceptable to the roads hut
if it should be nutilated ii might not be-
Mr., Sims repeated to Mr.. Hamilton the
question. he had asked of Mr. Green as to
what his road would do in case the present
bill failed of passage. The reply was that
the whole question Of terminal facilities
would have to be very carefully consid-
cred.
Who Originated the Bill.
Some little discussion was INDUCED in AZ
to- who was the father Of the present bill.
Both Mr.. Green and Mr.. Hamilton had