Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-05-06
AUTHORITY DOUBTED
Differences Between Commits
sioDers and R. r. Officials.
%
TERMINAL PROJECT
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS REGARDED
AS PROBABLE.
Contention Of Railway Attorneys May
Be supplemented by Applca-
ton for Mandamus.

source today that the legal representa-
tfves and the officials of the railroad
companies have called into question the
authority Of the District Commissioners
in the matter OF deciding as to the.
method to be employed In the oonstruc-
ton of the subways necessitated by the
union railroad terminal project. From
present Indications 1t Is anticipated that
the Washington Terminal Company will
shortly commence legal proceedings In
the Supreme Court of the District asking
for writ of mandamus compelling the
Commissioners to formally approve the
plans of the railroad company for the
construction of the subways In connec-
ton with the terminal project.
In the event such legal proceedings are
commenced the courts will be called upon
to coEstrue the provisions of the acts Of
Congress authorizing the construction of
the union railroad station in Washington.
and this will be the first legal action i'll
connection with the building of the proposed
magnificent and monumental railroad ter
mtnal for the national capital.
As has been previously stated In Ehe
Star, the subject of subway construction
has occasioned a great deal Of discussion
among the District officials and the officials
and engineers OF the Washington Terminal
Company. which company has been formed
for the purpose of carrying out the pro-
visions of the terminal act on the part of
the railroad companies running into wash
ington. Many conferences have been held
between the representatives of the District
and the railroad companies on this partic-
as yet no definite decision or agreement has
been reached by the parties interested IN
the matter.
Technical Points Considered.
Until recently the conferences have been
participated in on the part Of the railroad
companies by their construction engineers.
when, it Is understood, technical matters
relating to subway construction have been
discussed pro and con with the District en-
gineers. All the conferences have been
private. At the secret conference held at
the District building several days ago. how
ever, the legal department or the terminal
company was strongly in evidence as repre-
senting the railroad companies. while the
three Commissioners represented the DIS
trict Of Columbia. MIR. H. l.. Bond, general
attorney and second vice president or the
Baltimore and Ohio, and MIR. George E.
Hamilton, local attorney for the road. were
two of the conferees in behalf OF the ter
minal company, Chief Engineer Carothers
of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad being
the other railroad representative.
While 1t has BEEN admitted by the DIS
trict officials that the subject OF the
method of subway construction mas pesn
under discussion between them and the
railroad engineers, yet 1t has been stated
that the differences have been no more Sc
rious than those differences of opinion that
ordinarily arise in the prosecution OF con-
tract for large engineering projects. Re-
cent Developments, however, seem TO point
to a more clearly defined difference be-
tween the District and the railroad oni-
Gals. tEss stu1EIayt 3sl4s
| 1t is understood that the terminal COM
pany has not as yet submitted for the APP
| prevail of the Commissioners final plan
| for the construction of the subways. The
l,xJa Of pin wit
to this feature of the work, however. have
been clearly made known to the District
officials and the discussions among the
District and railroad engineers have been
upon these tentative plans. The officials of
| the District engineer department, 1t Is I'M
derstood. after numerous inspections of
| subway construction, have reached the con-
clusion that behind the facing wall OF the
tunnels an air space must be provided.
This is deemed necessary to prevent con-
densation of moisture on the walls of the
subways.
The District engineers also insist, it is
understood. that the tunnels shall be lined
| with light coIored bricks in order to add to
| the lighting facilities In the interior of the
subways. Upon these details. it is under
stood. the railroad officials do not agree
with the District officials. and right there's
| the rub"
Provisions Of Act Of Congress.
! The act of Congress to provide for a
| union railroad station In the District of
| Columbia. approved February %. 1905 pro-
| vides under the heading of Union sta
| t:on." that "the terminal station contem-
plated by this act shall cost not less than
"a, 0OO, 900, and shall BIS monumental in char
acter, and the plans thereof shall be SUBJ
| ject to the approval of the Commissioners
| of the District Of Columbia.
| The authority of the District Commission
ers with reference tc supervision over the
| plans for the construction of the whole ter
minaI project Is contained In section Of
| the act of February Is 1903, which reads as
| follows:
| Sec. T. That before any portion of the
work Of construction within the District of
Columbia herein described shall be begun,
plans thereof in accordance with the pro-
visions of this act shall be prepared by the
| company undertaking such work. and shall
1 be submitted for approval to the Commits
sioners Of the District OF Columbia: also in
| SO far as public parks and reservations
| may be affected. for approval also of the
| Secretary Of War; and also In SO far as
| underground construction is involved, for
| approval also Of the superintendent of tho
Library of Congress. Duly authenticated
| copies OF said plans shall, after approval
| be fled with the Commissioners of the
District of Columbia. and all work shall be
done in accordance Herewith. The COM
pany undertaking such work shall deposit
| with the collector of taxes such sums Of
| money as the Commissioners of tine Dis
| trict may reasonably require to cover the
cost of District inspection.
Contention Of Railway Attorneys.
| 1t is understood the attorneys of the ter
miraI company contend that the authority
| of the Commissioners does not extend to
/ the details OF the plans for the construc-
| ton Of the terminal project. but that they
| merely have authority over the general
| plans for the aworlS.o For instance, 1t Is
| stated. the railroad Representatives argue
| that il their engineers submit plans of the
| subways providing for good railroad con-
struction IN these tunnels, the Commits
sioners must approvc the plans. and cannot
require the railroadseompany to agree to
| their ideas as 70 thea dining of the tunnels.
and other details Ehe railroad officials,
also. 1t is understood, question the authori-
| ty Of the Commissioners to designate mate
| rails out of which any feature of the work
| shall be constructed Their position 1t is
| stated. seems to be that the Commissioners
| have authority only over general plans and
cannot specify as to details.
The Commissioners. 1t Is understood. be-
| Iieve that the union station act gives them
authority to approve or disapprove of the
whole plans OF the station work, even as to
\ rEoyy