The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1904-07-02
COURT DISHISSES
HILLARD SUIT
Case Disposed Of Upon the
Demurrer.
PETITIONER WILL APPEAL

Sought to Enjoir United States Treas
u-er From Paying District Money
to Railroad Companies.
Justice Anderson today dismissed the
petition of Josiah Willard VINO asked
the court 10 onjoin the Treasurer of The
United States. Ellis II. Roberts, AND the
District Of Columbia. from paying TO the
Philadelphia, Baltimore ana Washing
ton Railroad Co. the Baltimore and
Potomac Railroad Co. the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Co. und The wash
inston Terminal Co, S7500Jy under the
act OF Congress. providing tor the con-
siTuction Of tho Union Railway station.
Mr. Willard cOnteuded that The act is
unconstitutional and it is against public
policy 10 pay public money FOR private
enterprise
The matter came up some months ago
for consideration on the demurrer filed
90 the complaint and the court today
sustained the demurrer and dismissed
the bill
MT Mlllard said after the decision Of
4 The court was announced that he would
take the matter TO the Court Of Appeals
I Tor the District and If necessary TO the
supreme Court Of the United States.
Mir. Willard was represented by Az
torney w. Pre-. con Williamson, Mr..
Roberts by District Attorney Beach, the
District OF Columbia by CORPORATION
Counsel Duvau and the railroad COM
paines by Messrs. Hamilton & Colbert.
Opinion OF Court.
y he opinion Of the court dealt with all
the points which had been urged by
Willard against the consututionality Of
The acts.
III disposing of the first point of OBJ
lection. that the several acts originated
lu the Senate. and not in the House Of
. Representatives, and must therefore be
held 10 be void because repugGauC TO
the Constitution, which requires All
nfIS Tor raising revenue to originate IN
the House OF Representatives., Justice
Anderson said:
1T is manifest from a mere reading
Of the acts that they are acts. not FOR
the raising of revenue. but for aboli-
tiOn OF grade crossings The raising of
revenue is a mere incident 10 the carry
| ing into effect Of the main objects Of
the acts"
The decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States IN ;he case OF
I Twin City Bank vs.. NebeKer. 167 L. S.
12. was referred 10 by the court TO
show that The term revenue bills" as
made use Of in the Constitution applies
only 10 those that levy taxes in the
strict sense Of the word" and not 10
bills for other purpose which may
! Incidentally create revenue"
Direct Taxation.
In passing upon the second point OF
objection, that the acts provide for d.
rect taxation or the property and priv
ue8es OF the people of 5he District OF
Columbia, exclusive Of the States. and
are consequently repugnant TO the con
stituuonal rule of apportionment. Jus
tice Anderson said that the objection
was not deserving f serious cousIdera-
ton for the same reason that. unless
the sums appropriated by the acts can
properly be said 10 be gratuities, Con
lress has undoubted right to tax tho
people Of the District Of Columbia, as II
It's wisdom il may see fit, TO pay some
part Of the expenses necessarily incident
| 10 the elimination Of grade crossings and
/ thus lesseulug the dangers to which they
are subjected He said: This comes
clearly within the exercise Of the police
/ power, and Is such an elementary prOpO-
l s.tiOn that IL would serve no useful pur-
pose 10 make any citation OF authority"
/ Question Of Gratuities.
/ On the third. and last, objection, that
| -le sums appropriated by the acts are
. gratg!ties. Justice Anderson said.
Without discussing IN detail the vari-
I Gus provisions Of the two acts Of 1901
and the act OF 1903. il is sufficient 10 say
! that they all have for their object the
4 elimination of grade crossings in the
/ District Of Columbia. The two acts OF
! 1901 provided iCr two separate terminals
| ia different parts OF the city one IL
/ South Washington. and The other in
I East Washington, but IL was subse-
/ qucutly sought by Congress TO so Ear
/ modify these two acts as 20 make pro-
/ vision for one union terminal, since
I by NirtuIe OF the two acts OF 1901 two
/ sections OF the District would be sub
/ lccted TO railroad uses and iuCum Dered
. with bridges and elevated tracks. Hence
. the act OF 1893 was passed
lie then quoted from certain portions
. of the acts to show the consideration for
/ which the sums complained Of were APP
I prOprated according TO the express
( terms Of the acts themselves. and said:
Public Police Powers.
How can it. therefore. be seriously
I cOntendcd that these moneys are ap-
. prop-iated for a private. and not pub
/ Tic OF governmental use? 1t is purely
/ and simply a case Of legislation in the
nature Of the exercise Of the police
/ power of the Government 10 pay for
/ safety given To the people out Of the
/ taxes raised. All measures which have
/ Tor tnclT OBJECT the safety OF the lives
and health of the public come within the
/ police power.
1t would be- idle 20 enter into q dis
. cusslou of the many cases cited by
I counsel for the defendants showing Il 70
/ be entirely competent for the Legisla-
/ ture, under the police power 10 require
. the elimination OF grade crossings. and
. 20 cause the expense Of such elimination
T 10 be borne in such manner as ia its
wisdom might De dictated.
Intention Of Congress.
Even were the express contract fea-
/ lures of the acts 10 be disrcgarded. IL
IS manifest that Congress considered IL
TO be just and equitable that Il portion
+ oi the expense necessarily incident 10
tine elimination OF grade crossings ICON
sututmE distinct public beucnU
} should ye borne D. the United states
and the District OF Columbia. And the
/ Supreme Court Of the United States has
. lu "a number OF cases expressly TecOg-
uIZed the right of Congress 20 dis
. charge not only its strictly legal Obli-
cations but also those which are
/ founded upon equitable and moral con-
: sideIatIOus and grounded upon prin-
I Clples Of right and justice.
Broadly speaking IL does not see