Evening star., 1909-04-11
Congress Should Modify Law,
..-1>
Says Corporation Counsel.
BURDEN OF PROOF HEAVY
Thomas Suggests That Court Is
Wrong in Interpretation.
RULING COULD BE REVERSED
But Change in Provisions by Ma
tional Legislature Would More
Th1~ ,ughly Meet Situation.

Il an appeal sGeala ) taken by the
80 e.ttn /" Gorercs~ 'or a change
m INV 80 court for a
g"F.~Sa; "G,.S ts the rec
III tricn,,a. o.. II : 4 u u.~as. corpora
fi"a calosea IT, =. !. a the dec!s-
I"n ~ 'ntef Jr."r. LAT dgh In the
,''<'"S reccr.!r .r!cd in whi.i two local
gas '"za. t..e ytrc ,harsci with vio-
iating the law ,aluirlHE thori to furnish
gas of d'Tn.,s ,andlepc~er and OF
certain spec'acd purity
The decision was adre - - the Dis
trict The Commissioners aav, referred
to Corporation Couns~i 1brias he aues-
tion as TO whether O. aut -. District
should take an app u - CO - The
case was lost by the shs,tiet q. e rul-
ing by Chief Justice Claba.z,
Ruling Could Be Re<e.sed.
The Districts legal adviser thinks that
the Court of Appeals would change the
Interpretation of the law to make It
more favorable to the District. thus re-
versing the lower court. However, he
finds that the law imposes a big burden
on the District and thinks that some
changes are desirable.
In the beginning of the report to the
Commissioners the corporation counsel
quotes a portion of the law involved in
the case. which provides as follows:
When the illuminating gas supplied by
any company. person or persons in the
District of Columbia shall at any one time
be of less Illuminating power of less
purity than according to the standard just
heretofore given, it shall be SO reported
by the inspector of gas and meters, to the
company, person or persons supplying the
same. who shall be subject to penalty
of one hundred dollars, to be recovered
before the proper tribunal and paid into
the treasury of the District of Columbia
aforesaid for each and every day during
which such violation shall continue: Pro-
vided, however. That IL it shall appear
that such deviation from the above
named standards could not have been
prevented by ordinary care and prudence
but was occasioned by some unavoidable
| causes. then the said peRalty shall not be
| enforced"
Court in Error, Thinks Thomas.
| Corporation Counsel Thomas, after
quoting this section of the law, points
out that the judge held that the fault
must continue for the entire calendar
day. Mr. Thomas expresses the opinion
that this ruling is probably wrong and
that the District ought to obtain pen
alties for some Of the cases, although
probably not on all.
He thinks that the District could not
recover penalties for the day upon which
the fault was discovered, because the law
provides for notice to the company OF
the finding of the fault for that day. but
he contends that the District should re-
cover If the fault is discovered on i'm
medately succeeding days after the no.
tice has been given.
In discussing the clause excusing the
gas companies from liability. in case the
fault could not have been prevented by
ordinary care and prudence" he de-
clares that this imposes a heavy burden
Of proof on the prosecution. and one
which it is practically impossible for the
prosecution to meet. He favors an
amendment of the law taking off that
qualifying clause and providing for an abb
solute liability whenever the gas falls
below the standard If that is done, he
comedies. the penalty might be made
smaller.
When his report is considered by the
Commissioners they will decide whether
to appeal to the higher court for re-
versal of the judges ruling or to Con-
gress for an amendment to the law.