The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1906-06-07
AS NORTHUMBERLAND GRAND FORKS q

Persons going to different sections of
the city are required to pay two or
three fares. Even the Washington and
Electric Company will not issue trans
fers over all of its own lines, and the
senator In reporting on this subject,
says:
"An examination of the May showing
the street railway lines within the
District of Columbia viii disclose a
large area of territory thickly popu-
lated, both in the east and west parts
of the district, to reach which unre-
lated lines must be used, and, under
the present system, transfers are not
given between unrelated lines. Your
committee believes that the payment
of two fares by many of those inter-
ested is real hardship, and this class
of patrons, in furtherance of economy.
prefer to walk part of the way, so as
to save one fare, and, having walked
part of the distance, they are obliged
to go, many. no doubt, walk all of
the distance. Thus the railroads gain
but little under the present two-fare
system, and the loss through trans
fers to those who otherwise might pay
the extra fare would be small The
conditions referred to pertain chiefly
to territory within the city proper,
and it is unreasonable to ask any
street car patron to pay more than
one fare from any point to another
point within the city. 1t is urged
against the proposed liberalization of
the transfer system that, under the
prevailing practice, the companies are
losing money by being compelled to
issue six tickets for twenty-five cents.
This argument is believed to be un-
tenable.
The committee has provided in the
bill that transfers between unrelated
lines must be issued only to those
patrons who pay cash fare of five
cents, and that no transfer can be
used in way SO as to constitute
round trip for one fare If there were
but one street railway company in
Washington. as in Baltimore. there
could be no question whatever on the
part of the railway companies about
the wisdom of reciprocal transfers"
The introduction of this report, re-
curing favored corporations to pay
their just share of taxes, created quite
a discussion, after the senator's had
time to look into its Importance, and
the bill was recommitted for the sole
purpose of giving the parties inter-
ested an opportunity to be heard
against it. In reading the debate, we
were forcibly reminded of the recent
decision of the United States supreme
court in the case of Senator Burton,
who has been tried and convicted, and
the conviction sustained by the high
est court in the land for practicing
before the post Office department as
an attorney while holding the office
of United States senator Has sena-
tor holding stock in any of the public
service corporations of the District of
Columbia any legal or moral right to
vote on question of taxing the cor
pOrations of which he is a part. and
from which he receives a dividend, or
is he in the same position as that in
which We find Senator Burton at the
present time?
This is serious question, and one
that involves the standing of every
senator, the question of voting the
money. which rightfully belongs to the
government by just system of taxa
ton, into his own pocket instead of
into the Treasury of the United States.
We should like to be able to read
in the record an open confession such
as that one given by the honorable
senator from West Virginia, Mr. Scott,
who said in the course of the debate
II read the report of the senator from
North Dakota very carefully, and 1
came to the conclusion after reading
it. that the companies are not paying
the tax they should pay, and as a
small stakeholder in the Capital Trac-