The Washington times., 1904-03-24
Capital Traction President Shows His Teeth
in Hearing Before Senate Committee
on Great Falls Project.
HIS IMPLACABLE OPPOSITION
SHOWN IN IRONICAL REMARKS
Attorney for the Company and Others Give
Sound Reasons for Passage Of Enabling
Act to Build Line

/ The NJ Street cross town railway pro-
/ ject Of the Great Falls and Old Domin-
! ion Railway Company was considered
today at a public hearing before the
Senate District Committee.
Every member Of the committee was
present. and about fifty citizens interest
ed in District matters crowded about
the room and entrances. Prominent
among them. in addition 20 those who
spoke on the bill. were Gen. George II
| Harries. Thomas W Smith D. r Nc
/ Kee. Frank Hume. and Barry Bulk
ely. The members of the committee who
| queried the speakers most frequently
were Senators Foraker, Dubois. German.
| Simmons. HansbrOugh, Mallory. and
Gallinger. chairman
After an opening argument in favor
OF the bill the greater part of the ses-
sion was taken up by President Dun
lop. Of the Capital Traction Company.
He went into details Of local street rail
way legislation since 1862 and made
many sharp observations upon the in
vasion Of the rights of his corporation.
He plainly surprised several Senator'S
by bold declaration that the Old Do
miniOn Company could not have gotten
permission to have crossed the Aque-
duet Bridge and get into the District
II his company had objected.
THAT is a reflection upon Congress- -
promptly commented Chairman CALM
ger, and Mr. Dunlop revised his answer
/ Citizens Ready to Fight.
There was clear Indication today of a
sharp conflict IN prospect between the
i prez<Ht street railway companies and
the representatives Of the citizens as
sociations when the latter are heard By
the Senate committee.
Thomas W. Smith called attention TO
the fact that MIR Dunlop was exhaust
ing all the time of the hearing and init
mated he wished TO make a strong re-
ply and ask some pertinent questions.
! Chairman Gallinger assured Mr. Smith
that opportunity would be given him
| on Saturday morning. to which time ad-
journment would be taken.
Argument for Company.
Ex-senator Marion Butler, of North
| Carolina. appeared as counsel for the
railway company, and was the first
speaker
There are only two questions at is
sue said Mr.. Butler. First, is there
need for crosstown road; second, what
| route should be selected.
The first question needs no argU-
n:ent 1t Is admitted that a crosstown
| road is a prime necessity. The Commis-
sioners have submitted substitute bill.
| saying the original bill needs amend
ment. All that the company asks is
privileges equal TO those heretofore
| given to other companies"
| Mr. Butler suggested an amendment
| that all roads be put on the same basis.
| entirely satisfactory. Referring TO sec
ton OF the original bill, empowering
| the company TO exercise in the District
all the rights It has In Virginia, Attor-
ney Butler admitted that he would not.
If a member Of the Senate committee
be in favor of so drastic a section. 1t
could be made applicable only TO the
District. he said, in plain phraseology,
and thus remove all the objections urged
against the section. Otherwise II would
be necessary 10 include 100 or more
small items in the bill, thus leading
more TO confusion than to clarifying the
purposes of the bill
The Route Discussed.
The question of NJ or L Street as the
route was discussed at length by Mr.
Butler.
The road must go somewhere. he
said, and IL every individual objection
Is upheld, there will never be another
street railway in the District OF COlum-
| bia. If there were no street railway on
| Connecticut Avenue today and prop
osition were made TO build one there.
|
there is now to NJ Street But now that
the Connecticut Avenue road is built
no one would want IL taken away.
IL Street would not be an advisable
| route for these reasons: The street
! would have to be widened from end to
/ end all through the city, cutting down
| all the shade trees, taking away the
| parking from in front OF the adjacent
houses. changing sewer and two uu-
I dergrOund water mains. and making Z.
| general alteration necessary. on II
Street these objections would not hold
good
The company is willing to take any
lroute the Senate committee may name,
| but we hope il will be NJ Street: and We
suggest that the regula tions imposed
be made as simple as possible Wc have
| no objection TO any provisions which
are made applicable as well to existing
roads. Section -. of the Commissioners
ball. placing all schedules under thei:
control. is not Objectionable. If made
10 apply 10 all companies.
Urges Competition.
The only other objection of the Com
missioners is that il would be better
for existing lines to be extended. be-
cause those companies could build the
. road more eheaply and operate il more
cheaply. Is that any matter for thu
public? We think we could build and
operate il just as cheaply.
, rs IL not better to have an indie
{ pendent competing company build the
= road at once, rather than wait until
the present company thinks an eNtenz
sion OF their lines is worth while, ac-
cording 10 the traffic. A new company
will have 20 give good service, or IL
cannot make the road pay. II the road
is built BY the existing company. II VIII
not be necessary TO give the best serN-
ice, because people who do not Ike the
service viii be compelled TO walk The