Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-03-21


Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington
Railroad Company, as the share of the
District in carrying these acts into effect.
A demurrer was 1nterposed to the bill,
and the demurrer was sustained, and the
bill dismissed. From the decree of dismissal
Mr.. Willard appealed.
The Questions Considered.
Two questions were raised by Mr.. Willard.
They were that the appropriation of the
money of the District of Columbia toward
the payment of the expenses provided by
the acts of Congress in question is that of
public money for a private use, and is
therefore unconstitutional and void; and
that the acts are void because they are rev.
enue measures and originated in the Senate
instead of the Housepof Representatives. N
which latter body the Constitution OF the
United States requires that all bills for
| raising revenue shall originate.
According to the Court of Appeals it is.
regarded that the general appropriate
bills, called, as we'll as the bills for the
raising of revenue, should originate in the
House of Representatives, butsa bill plainly
for another purpose, and which only Incl
dentally carries an appropriation with 1t in
order to give it effect, although such an ap-
preparation may in fact be necessity for
the efficiency of the bill, is not constitu-
tionally barred from origina ting in the SEN
ate. If it were, the Court of Appeals says,
possibly one-half or three-fourths of the
legislation of Congress would be null and
void.
Further, the Court of Appeals holds that
! in the case there has not been shown any
appropriation of public, funds for private
uses. Ia O.
The appellate court takes the view that
the case is practically that of contract
between the United States and the District
OF Columbia, on the one side, and the rail-
road companies on the other, whereby the
railroad companies agree to surrender GER
tain rights and to construct work of
great magnitude, greater perhaps than
their own needs require, but which Congress
deems to be demanded for the best interest
Of the national capital and by the public
at large; and for this surrender of right and
this work of magnitude commensurate with
the public demand Congress agrees to pay a
certain sum, partly out of the funds of the
United States and partly out of the funds
OF the District of Columbia.
Case Of Bargain and Sale.
1t is a simple case of bargain and sale
the Court Of Appeals adds, like any other
purchase. Some persons there may be who
may think the amount of the purchase
money too great; but that Is a consdera-
ton for Congress- not for the courts.
In affirming the decree appealed from
py Mr.. Willard, the Court of Appeals
says:
Recognizing, as we do, the patriotic
purpose of the appellant to protect and
defend the rights of the citizen against
unlawful Misrepresentation of the public
funds, raised from him and others by
taxation, yet we find here no case of ex-
latlve authority. We should be slow in
any event to question the constitutions
atty OF congressional legislation, and the
the courts Will assume to declare such leg
islation invalid"
Reversal Of Judgment.
The Court of Appeals, by an opinion writ
m nv Mr 11St
today, reversed the judgment of the lower
court in the case of Ida Dotey, appellant,
against the District of Columbia, and re-
manded the cause for new trial. The suit
was one at common law. institnted in the
supreme Court of the District of Columbia
10 recover compensation from the District
TOT personal injuries sustained by the plain
III through the alleged negligence of the
District authorities in permitting a defec-
tive condition of one of the sidewalks in
this city. The defendant moved the court
70 dlrect the jury to return verdict in it's
favor upon the grounds that the plaintiff
was guilty of contributory negligence and
that the location of the place of the acci-
dent was outside of the public sidewalk
The motion was allowed and Judgment rem
dered for the District
me Court of Appeals holds that IT was
error to withdraw the case from the jury.
Decree Modified.
In the case of James R. Whelpley and
others, appellants, against Samuel Ross, a
controversy between a so-called building
association and one known as, borrow
ing stockhelder," the Court of-Appeals to-
day announced it's opinion The latter, in
effect. is that while the complainant is
entitled to have his property relieved from
the deed of trust and TO have the bond
given by Montgomery and the stock issued
TO him Cancelled, he Is not here entitled to
nave repayment to him or the money
which he claims to have overpaid, If any
such overpayment there SvasS and that the
decree appealed from should be modified to
that extent So modified that decree will
be affirmed" The opinion Was written by
Mr.. Justice Morris I'M