Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-05-13
Vice President Green's Attitude

vice PRESIDENT Green's Attitude.
| Mr.. Hansbrough said that Vice President
| Green of the Pennsylvania Railroad Com
pany had said his company accepted the
| proposition in the pending bill reluctantly,
| but they would be delighted to have the
| District build the depot as proposed by him.
! Mr.. Hansbrough submitted the report of
| the railroad committee of the Board of
Trade of this city on the subject of a union
| station to be built by the District and the
| veto message of Gov. Crane of Massa chu-
| sets to recent subway measure in Bos-
| ton. He also requested that the bill be al
| lowed to go over day or two, as he had
| not heard from the War Department on it.
| Mr.. Hansbrough then offered his substitute
| bill providing for union station to he built
| by the District.
| Mr.. Gallinger then submitted letters from
Gen. Mackenzie, acting chief of engineers,
| saying that the subject of the union station
was one that does not touch any interest
particularly under the control of the War
Department and that it pertained more
| particularly to the District government He
| also offered letter from Commissioner
Mcfarland in which he says the District
commissioners cannot recommend the
enactment of the proposed substitute
Mr.. Gallinger stated that under the law
| the Pennsylvania and the B. & O. railroad
companies could each build a depot
Pay for Vacating the Mall.
| Mr.. Clay objected to the proposition to
pay the railroad company for the land on
the mall that 1t gives up. The company
had had the of it for twenty-five years
and it held 1t only so long as they were
to use it.
Mr.. Gallinger said sight should not be
lost of the fact that the railroad company
had not asked to move away. Congress was
asking it to move He said instead of cost
ing S,OO0OGO as suggested by Mr.. Hans
brough. the government and the District
would pay S3.OOO.0O0 to the railroads and
S1,619.OOO for street improvements, grading
and paving, for land and damages to prop
erty due to change of grade.
Mr.. Bacon wanted to know whether the
people of the District approved the bill and
Mr.. Gallinger replied that mo citizen of
the District has appeared before the COM
mittee to raise an objection to the bill
AS far as the committee knew the press and
the people Of the District were in favor
Of it.
Mr.. Hanna for the Bill.
Mr.. Hanna favored the passage of the
bill. He knew the District commit ee's plan
for identifying the District and approved it.
1T Is my pleasure said Mr.. Hanna "to
have the personal acquaintance of Presi-
dent Cassett of the Pennsylvania railroad
l happened to meet him a day or two ago
in social way, and l want to quote his
words in discussing this proposition. He
said to me, We are entirely satisfied by the
way in which the congressional committee
met us with reference to increasing our
facilities in Washington. We were entirely
satisfied th;t they were dealing with US
literally when they granted us additional
room between 9th and 7th streets for a de-
pot, and we were prepared to go ahead and
build those terminals. under the law as
passed, to elevate our tracks as to OBJ
literate all grade crossings. We were per-
fectly satisfied. but he says. your chair
| man of the committee on the District of
Columbia approached US with another plan
- " hQC hao nlohn Tod IN, bic
bill. At first l was opposed to it, Presi-
dent Cassett said. I could not see how we
could accomplish 1t physically without an
enormous expense, and speaking for our
own property, l was not favorable to it; but
| under the influence and the inspiration of
the men on that committee, who had in
view not only the safety connected. with
this project, but the identifying Of Wash
ington. became inspired to the extent that
l was willing to add two or three million
dollars to that expenditure out of pure pa
triotic feeling toward the scheme which
they had brought forward
Opposes Municipal Ownership.
| Now, as a railroad proposition. in the
selfish interests of the railroad corporation,
| 1t is better proposition. il the railroad
company would consider only their inter-
| ests, that the original plan is carried out
| As a business proposition it is perfectly alb
| surd to consider a union depot under munic
| ipal ownership, managed by commissioners.
! paid salaries by the government. to handle
| the hundreds of railroad trains in and out
| of that station and over the terminals. If
| the government assumes any such RESPONSE
bility the government will be responsible
| for all the damages and accidents that oc-
cur on their property. No railroad would
undertake to occupy a building furnished
| by the District of Columbia or the govern
ment OF the United States to do the i'm
mense terminal business that has got to be
| done here. Somebody has got to take the
| responsibility of the handling of those
| trains. and somebody has got to take the
responsibility alone and not have any part
ners in it. Therefore, 1 suppose. 1t viii or
ganize a terminal company for that pur-
pose.
las far as building a depot for an invest
ment is concerned. I am opposed to any
such principle on the part OF the govern
ment Of the United States or the District Of
| Columbia as far as we have any right to
| interfere. The proposition made by the rail-
road companies embodied in this bill gives
the right to any legitimate railroad enter
prise to use that station. and 1t Is proposed
| to build 1t large enough. with SUFFICIENT ter