Evening star., 1909-06-30
Motion Argued to Quash
CroWding lnformations.
ATTACK is MADE ON LAW
Companies Attorney Declares PEN
alties Amount to Confscation.
MIGHT COST MILLION A YEAR
Five Different Forms of Prosecution
Possible Under the Existing
Act, Mr.. Hoover Declares.

Arguments upon the motion TO ouash
the informations recently filed against
the Capital Traction Company and the
Washington Railway and Electric COM
pany charging overcrowding of cars and
violation of the interstate commerce COM
mission regulations prohibiting the run.
ming of cars with fiat wheels and INSULT
cient wheel guards We're begun before
Judge Mulowny in the United States
branch of the Police Court this morning.
The attorneys participating in the argu-
ment are United States Attorney ID. w.
Baker, Assistant United States Attorney
Ralph Given and Assistant United States
Attorney NJ. +. Mangan of the prosecu-
tion, r. Ross Perry and c. r Hoover,
the latter in the capacity of special coun-
sci appearing for the Washington Rail-
way and Electric Company. and G..
Thomas Dunlop representing the interests
OF the Capital Traction Company
The proceedings were opened by the
formal filing of the motion to uuash with
the court. which was Immediately fol-
lowed by United States Attorney Baker
offering an amended information TO all
of the ten crowding cases filed. The
amended informations charge the over
crowding of cars In two counts rather
than single one. as in those already on
fle. and allege the violation of the act OF
Amendment Not Considered.
A lengthy discussion ensued between
attorneys and the court over the amend
inent. and it was finally agreed to go on
with the argument i'm the cases as they
stand al present. No formal objection
was offered by counsel for the defendant
companies to the filing of the informa-
tion, although they objected to argument
that objection TO the amended informa-
ton, II any should develop. would he an
sWered in the form of a brief after the
present arguments are concluded.
q. Il. Hoover, special counsel represent
ing the Washington Electric and Railway
Company, was the first to make his ar
gument. After reading the four grounds
upon which the companies asked that the
lnformations be quashed, he launched into
denuncfation of the penalties provided
under section 16 of the act He said that
under the provisions of the act and this
section the railway companies were liable
to five different forms of prosecution,
each of which provided a fine of $1,000.
Amounts to Confiscation.
He stated that if one prosecution was
brought each day in the year and a con-
viction followed, or, after the first con-
viction if the conditions complained OF
were not remedied. minimum of fines
WoulQ amount TO SobttDU. He estimated
a fair maximum at over $1,Oo0,OO0.
The act. because of these penalties
provided, he asserted, was confiscatory
and tended to intmidate the railway COM
panies from coming into the court of the
District to test its validity.
The act was attacked upon the ground
that because of its alleged vagueness and
indefinite character there was a failure
to show what constitutes crowding The
counsel stated before going TO trial II was
ftafa
commission through the United States at
torney TO clearly define what crowding as
prohibited by the act was. The defendant
companies objected to being tried upon
the general and indefinite character of the
section upon which the present charges
are based.
In support of this portion of the argu-
ment a number of authorities were cited
to show that before filing charges under a
particular law It was necessary that this
law be definite and exact in defining the
offense complained Of.
Purpose of Act Not Clear.
1t was argued that the purpose of the
act was to remedy conditions arising
from possibly an insufficient number OF
cars or unsatisfactory service upon par
ticular street car lines, and was not in
tended for the prosecution of isolated
cases caused by the voluntary actions
of the public in croWding one car While
other cars were running on satisfactory
schedule to accommodate them. This
phase of the case was argued at some
length, during which numerous efforts in
other cities to remedy crowded street car
conditions We're cited, and also the street
car regulations of France governing the
subject.
The argument of Attorney Hoover was
concluded by reading from a recent re-
port of the interstate commerce commits
sion upon street conditions i'll this
city. and efforts the commission had
made TO ascertain some means by which
the crowding nuisance could be remedied.
The defendant companies asserted this
showed the need OF more definite legisa-
ton the subject.
At the conclusion of the Hoover argu-
ment the matter was continued until to-
morrow morning when Messrs. Baker and
Perry will make their arguments respec-
lively for and against the motion to
quaSh.