Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-12-11
Location the ONLY Question.

Location the Only question.
After a long review of the bill of COM
plaint and the answer of the Philadelphia,
Baltimore and Washington Railroad Com
panv. Justice Barnard, in a written opin-
ion. says:
THE whole question in controversy IN
this case seems to be the place Tor oulid.
ing the substation required under the act
of February 2S, 1903; and perhaps some
confusion has arisen by reason OF the
presentation Of plans for the building at
the same tiTe that the question OF site
was presented for approval
The place for the building of this SUBJ
station was matter of legislation by
Congress, and the act might have pre-.
cribed the exact location, but instead OF
doing that, il provided that the location
should be north of the Long bridge. and
the exact spot was to be determined by
the defendant In the first instance, Tor II
was to be convenient location; and after
IL was selected or suggested by the de-
fendant it was TO be approved by the
commissioners Such, / think. is the 1aif
construction of that provision or the
statute, with respect to the location OF
this subStation-
Congress having determined that it
was to be located north of the Long
bridge, it would hardly seem to be within
the intention of the act that it could be
placed SO far east, or northeast, as 4ts
street or 7tn street: and it is conceded
that the suggested location at l4th ana
Water streets is the most convenient
place that can be properly described as
north of the Long bridge.
The bill herein is not filed by the mu-
nicipality known the District OF CO.
lumbia but is filed by the Commissioners,
who are the executive officers of that
municipality. They are purely creatures
OF statute as we'll as the defendant, and
neither can have rights or powers that
are not expressly granted or cannot be
fairly implied from or incident TO the
powers which are expressly granted.
THE power of locating the Substation
in the first instance was vested in Con-
gress as the legislative body for this
District. 1t could prescribe not only the
place but the conditions on which the
right to build the substation should de-
pend; and the only duty or power that
was vested in the Commissioners was
that the site. within the limitations of
the act. was to be approved by them
They could not waive the provision of
the statute requiring the location to be
north of the Long bridge. Neither was
power given to them as Commissioners
To bring the defendant into court because
of the failure of the defendant to select
a convenient location. but failure in
this regard would have TO be considered
by Congress, which retained the right to
alter, amend or repeal the act at any
time.
Dispute as to Approval.
THE point is made in argument by
counsel for the complainants that the
Commissioners never did approve the site
for this substation. because. il is claimed,
tue plans submitted embraced certain pOr-
tionS of the public grounds being part
of Potomac Park. which was not under
their control; and that they only ap-
proved so far as related to the ground
embraced i'll the right of way of the de-
fendant.
1T appears, however. that the Commits
sioners undertook to get and did get, SO
far as the Secretary of War had the au-
thority to convey the same. jurisdiction
over portion of Potomac Park which
did embrace the whole site on which it
was proposed to erect the Substation. and
a considerable portion besides; and while
there may be some question as to the
power of the Secretary of War to transfer
jurisdiction TO the care of this part
of the park to the Commissioners. it does
not seem to me that that question is ma
tcrial. The title TO that portion of the
park still remains in the United States.
hut its care was. or was attempted TO be.
given to the District Commissioners at
their request. and it does not seem 10 me
that they can. on their own motion. raise
the question of authority for this transfer;
but even il the contention Of counsel for
the complainants in this respect is cor
rect, that such transfer was made with
out any authority and has no validity in
law. still it appears in the record, beyond
question. as shown by the indorseme mt S
on the plans and the correspondence and
especially by the letter of July :: 1893 ad-
dressed to the counsel of the defendant t.
that the site for the erection of this sub
station was approved by the Commissions
e-s.
by this letter OF July 3 1905. the Com
missioners undertake to revoke their ap.
prevail: and certainly If the site had never
been approved there would be nothing
to revoke: and their action in that re-
spect forecioses any claim on their part
hat fha ito had nt hna -n1
Not only did they undertake to revoke
the approval by said letter of July .:
1905. but they undertook by that letter
and action. to point out another site which
the railroad company must select al al,
carly day for their approval.
No Power of Revocation.
Having approved the site first selected
have they any authority or power of re
vocation. is their power and duty un
der this act o. Congress. in relation I,
Gaatinucd on Fourteenth Page.J