Evening star., 1909-07-01
District Attorney Argues in
"OvercroWding" Case.
OPPOSES MOTION TO QUASH
Supports Charges Against Street
Railway Company.
DEFENSE UNDER THREE HEADS
Ridicules Contention That Penalties
of the Law Are Confscatory.
Rights Not Violated.

Argument on the motion To quash IT,"
informations filed against the two local
street railway systems charging them
with overcrowding their ears was =
sumed before Judge Mullowny in the
United States branch of the Police
Court TODAY United States tttornef
Raker replied To Special Counsel Hoo
Yer representing the Washington Rail
way and Electric Company. Mr.. Baker
in opening said he would not discuss
rhe informations flied. the argument
of the defense appeared TO be aimed
entirely at the law.
He stated that the amended lnforma- :
lions were offered, with more Specli1c
wording. for the purpose Of counteractlnS
any possible technical objection the de-
Tense might offer TO the originals He
summed up the defense under three heads
the heavy penalties provided by law. the
vagueness Of the law and the question of
whether the railways could be prosecuted
under the law itself rather than under
one OF the regulations promulgated in &C
cordance with ii.
Discussing what the defense termed the
excessive penalties of the law. Mr.. Baker
ridiculed the contention that they were
confisca tory, as the specified provision is
made that the punishment may not exceed
$1,000. II may range. he said. from
cent to the maximum. at the discretion
OF the court. He cited a number OF speed
ing cases.
Penalties Not Excessive.
Were excessive penalties imposed in
these cases. he asked. Il think not.
They have ranged from s. to s. for each
conviction. | respectfully submit that il
these corporate interests openly, wilifully
and notorously crowd cars after suffi-
cient warning conviction. thousand
dollar fine would be suiscient, and 1t may
take a thousand-dollar fine TO effectually
stop them.
Il hardly think the law is unconstitu-
tonal and that this court has no jurisdic-
ton in the premises because of the PEN
aitieS provided
Counsel argued that the law is not
vague and that il is not the duty of a
jury. and could not he, to define what
constitutes street car crowding, but is
rather the duty of the court to instruct
the jury as a matter of law.
Rights Not Violated.
1t was contended that where the statute
prohibits specific act as in the case of
crowding street cars, it would be super
fuous to all intents for the interstate
commerce commission to pass regulations
providing against the act.
II am aware, however that the inter-
state commerce commission has passed a
1T is not only prohibited now by the act
itself. but by a regulation passed under
the provisions of the act Mr.. Baker
said.
The argument of the United States at
iorney was concluded with the statement
that the act under which the prosecution
was brought is perfectly clear. within
reason, and none of its provisions violate
constitutional rights.
Perry Speaks for Defense.
r. Ross Perry, for the Washington Rail-
way and Electric Company, spoke next
for the defense. He asserted the court
vas without jurisdiction because of the
unconstitutionality of the law, it COM
pels something to be done which is impos-
sible-preventing large numbers of per-
sons boarding street cars.
He asserted that If the conditions ex-
listed as charged the remedy would be in
power and make the boarding of a crowd
ed street car by a citizen misdemeanor.
as in the case of newsboys. Only when
the voluntary crowding by the public is
made punishable. he argued, can the con-
ditions alleged be remedied.
1T would be impossible to run cars of
these companies in the city every day
for the benefit of the public Mr
Perry said. without unintentionally
violating one or more provisions of this
act. which opens up the way for con-
tinued prosecution and the imposition
of the heavy penalties provided
At the close of Mr.. Perry's argument
the prosecution. through Mr.. Baker
argued in rebuttal. citing what he
termed the excellent manner the ca RS
were precented from being crowded At
the Union station by street car company
employees.
IF crowdng can be prevented there -
he said. 1T can he prevented all Over
the city.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Bakers ar
gument in rebuttal the matter was