Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-07-02
UNION STATION ACT
Court Declares il to Be Con-
stitutional.
HEARING ON DEMURRER
BILL FILED BY JOSIAH WILLARD
DISMISSED.
Suit Brought to Restrain Payment Of
District Share of Cost
Of Project.
HEARING ON DEMURRER


trict of Columbia. the Philadelphia. Bal;t-
\ more and Washington Railroad Company.
\ the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Com
pany. the Baltimore and Ohio Raiiro I'D
| Company and the Washington Terminal
| Company, to have the union station act
| OF February %, 1903. and the two preceding
| acts of February L. 1901. declared uncon-
| stitutional and to enjoin proceedings there
under
The court upheld the acts in question
constitutional. denied the prayers of Mr..
Willard. and dismissed his bill of complaint
with costs.
Among other things Mr. Willard wanted
the District OF Columbia restrained from
paying to the railroad companies concerned
its half OF the 81 10000 allowed the rail-
road companies by act of Congress In the
matter of the union station improvements.
The hearing was on demurrers presented
by the several defendants. The demurrers
were sustained.
The Points Raised.
The opinion was an exhaustive one. and
dealt with all the points which had been
| urged by Mr. Willard against the consti-
nationality of the acts.
In disposing of the first point Of obJec-
ton urged by Mr.. Willard. that the sew
eral acts originated in the Senate and not
in the House of Representatives. and
must, therefore. be held to be void be-
cause repugnant to article l. section Z.
clause l, of the Constitution OF the United
States, which requires all bills for rails
ing revenue to originate in the House of
Representatives, Justice Anderson said:
1T Is manifest from a mere reading OF
said acts that they are acts. not for the
raising of revenue, but for the abolition OF
grade crossings. The raising OF revenue Is
mere incident to the carrying into effect
OF the main objects of the acts"
The decision of the Supreme Court OF the
United States In the of Twin City
Bank V. Nebeker. 1877 u s., 2O2, was referred
to by the court to show that the term
revenue bills" as made use of in the Con-
stftutfon, applies only to those that levy
taxes in the strict sense of the word" and
not to bills for other purposes which may
incidentally create revenue"
Second Point Of Objection.
In passing upon the second point OF Oh
lection raised by Mr. Willard. that the acts
provide for direct taxation on the property
and privileges Of the people of the District
of Columbia. exclusive of the states, and
are consequently repugnant to the consu-
tutional rule OF apportionment, Justice An
derson said that the objection was not de-
serving of serious consideration. for the
reason that unless the sums appropriated
by the acts can properly be said to be
gratuties, Congress has undoubted
right to tax the people of the District Of
Columbia, in its wisdom 1t may see fit.
to pay some part of the expenses neces-
sarily incident to the elimination OF grade
crossings. and thus lessening the dangers
| to which they are subjected.
He added: This comes clearly within the
exercise of the police power. and is such an
elementary proposition that IL would serve
no useful purpose to make any citation OF
authority"
The Third Objection.
In disposing of the third and last objec-
ton urged by Mr.. Willard, that the sums
appropriated by the acts are gratuities.
Justice Anderson remarked.
without discussing in detail the various
provisions Of the two. acts OF 1901 and the
act of 1903. it is sufficient to say that they
all have for their object the elimination of
grade crossings in the District OF Columbia.
THE two acts OF 1901 provided for two
separate terminals in different parts OF the
city. one In South Washington, and the
other in East Washington, but II was sub
sequently sought by Congress to SO far
modify these two acts as to make provi-
sion for one union terminal. since by virtue
OF the two acts of 1901 two sections OF the
District would be subjected to railroad
uses and incumbered with bridges and ele-
waited tracks. Hence the act OF f303 was
passed
The court quoted from certain portions OF
the acts TO show the consideration for
which the sums complained of were appro-
priated according to the express terms or
the acts themselves, and said:
How can It, therefore, be seriously con-
tended that these moneys are appropriated
for a privatS, and not public or govern
mental use? 1t Is purely and simply q
case of legislation in the nature OF the
exercise of the police power OF tho gov
eminent to pay for safety given to the peo-
pic out Of the taxes raised.
"Au measures which have for their object
the safety of the lives and health OF the
public come within the police power. 1t
would be idle to enter into discussion OF
.,ifa tx-N f.xr
PENDANTS showing IL to be entirely compe-
tent for the Legislature under the police
power. to require the elimination OF grade
crossings. and 20 cause the expense OF such
eliminat ton to be borne in such manner as
in its wisdom might be dictated.
Even were the express contract features
of the acts to be disregarded it Is manifest
that Congress considered IL to be just and
equitable that portion OF the expense
necessarily incident to the elimination of
grade crossings, constituting distinct pub
lie benefit. should be borne by the United
States and the District OF Columbia. And
the Supreme Court OF the United States
has in a number OF cases expressly recog-
nized the right of Congress to discharge.
not only Its strictly legal obligations. but
also those which are founded upon eauita-
BILE and moral consideration and grounded
upon principles of right and justice.
Regarded as Without Equity.
Broadly speaking, 1t does not seem to
me that there is any equity I'm this bill OF
complaint. The complainant alleges that he
IL q taxpayer. He appears here as the solo
complainant and asks that this great en-
terprtse shall be suspended and set at
naught on the ground that the law under
which these improvements are now proceed
ing is unconstitutional and that he as a
taxpayer. will be affected thereby.
Before a party has e right to come into
a court of equity he must be In a position
to satisfy the court that some Substantial
right Of his win be affected. As between
the equities of the people of the District
of Columbia. the equities of SO.0Uo for
whose benefit these acts were passed. and
of this single taxpayer. whose contributes
to the fund is purely nominal. there can be
no comparison.
rs II possible that because the Congress
OF the United States, in enforcing the pc
lice power. sought TO do the just thing by
COD tributing something toward that ex-
pense IL must DO said to be violating the
law and doing an unconstitutional thing?
Or on the other hE nd. that the contrthu-
ton to the railroad companies was tho
md hat fho oh pF L.