The Washington times., 1911-10-18
TRANSFER MOTIONS
ARGUED, DARR AND
THOMAS IN COURT
Corporation Counsel There
to File Brief on Behalf
of Commissioners.

TWO motions In the transfer litigation
In the District Supreme Court were ar
gued before Justice Dan Thaw Wright
today, one being to dismiss the suit of
the Baltimore and Washington Transit
Company to compel the Capital Trac-
ton Company to issue transfers at Six
teenth and Kennedy streets northwest
and the other TO strike out the pleadings
of the defndant
In addition to the counsel for the two
railway companies, Attorney Charles w.
Commerce. and Corporation Counsel
Thomas. Appearing for the District Com
missioners, were in court, the latter
seeking to file brief to protect the In
terests Of Congress In the matter Of
universal transfer legislation.
Corporation Counsel Thomas asked
permission to file the brief in the
event of the defendant railway COM
pany raising the question of the right
charges and to to iesisiate relative to
transfers. The court declared 1t could
not anticipate the development of such
dispute, but reserved the right for
Mr.. Thomas to later file his proposed
brief If the trend Of the argument me-
cessitate sucn action.
The corporation counselor stated that
he recognized that the District Com
missioners could not become a party
to the suit, but asserted that they
could be represented for the purpose Of
preserving or protecting Congressional
rights. .
though it is understood he will render
any professional aid possible to the at
| torneys for the receiver Of the transit
company.
Brief From Railway Lawyers.
Attorneys r. Ross Perry and G..
Thomas Dunlop appeared for the Capt.
tai Traction Company and submitted a
| brief containing 1863 printed pages, while
| Attorneys III. F. Lerch and H. w. WILL
Jams represented the receiver Of the
| Baltimore and Washington Transit Com
pany.
The brief filed by the defendant COM
| pany is a concise review of all the leg
| islation In the District of Columbia with
| respect to street railways, covering the
period beginning with the charter of the
old Washington and Georgetown Com
company's contentious as to the lack of
Jurisdiction of the District Supreme
Court supplemented with scores Of cita-
tions.
Lack Of Jurisdiction to entertain the
| petition in equity was argued at great
length, counsel for the traction company
| contending that II any remedy was to
| be had 1t would be through manda-
mus. Attorney Dunlop argued that the
| petition to compel the issuance Of trans
| fers did not aver a single cause for a
case in equity.
Dunlop\ Contention.
Attorney Dunlop referred to a de.
cision Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States in which II was held
| that whenever a new right Is grantaO
by statute. or a new remedy for yio.
| v-sl - 1II rtt1At tha fpr ri
diction Of such cases, as between the
| law and equity side of the Fedora
| courts, must be determined by the
essential character. Of the case. and
unless 1t comes within some of the
| recognized heads of equitable jurisdic.
ton 1t must be held to belong to the
| other"
This point brought a motion from the
attorneys for the receiver to strike ou,
the dismissal motion Of the defendant
on the grounds that 1t was not q
RrHper puniop fis Frankly admitted the conten'
ton, but asserted that the case does
not belong in equity in any event. all
though 1t was disputed that the Dis
tsict Supreme Court had any 5urisdic'
ton.
| Justice Wright halted the argument
of Attorney Dunlop at this point, and
asked that ATTORNEY Williams give his
version of the contention that the case
arguments were made as to this con
| tention, which Justice Wright said haC
strongly impressed him.
Contract With United States.
Much stress was laid by Attorney
Dunlop on the proposition that the com.
pany's charter. approved June p. 1888
constitutes a contract with the United
States, and that It cannot ba voided
He argued that the court could not fiS
q rate, urging in effect that an order
for free transfers would be such, an6
that it was solely a legislative duty.
He called attention to the fact that
the Baltimore and washington Transit
Company and the Capital Traction Com.
pany do not physically connect or in
tersect, and that any transfer from one
line to the other would necessarily bt
given free to the passengers. He stated
that Congress never contemplated such
an arrangement.
ter of the Capital Traction Company
| constitutes a contract, and that 1t can
not be impaired. Attorney Lerch main
tains that Congress has right t.
power in the charter In question. and
that 1t was virtually amepded when tn,
| transit company charter bill was en-
acted. He debated that the Capita
| traction Company CndTter was granted
in 1883, and that in 1894, and SUBSEQUENT
ly, Congress indirectly imposed .addi
tional restrictions.
Traction Company's View.
On the question of jurisdiction IN
equity to entertain the petition tt
compel the issuance of transfers, coun
sci for the Capital Traction Compan,
contend:
"The facts averred constitute M
recognized ground for general equity re
lief. No matters of account are in
volved. There is no question of adj
mnistration of a trust; no accident
fraud, or mistake is averred; no in
junction is prayed for. Runnins
over the whole domain of equity juris
diction, 1t is apparent that the bill can
not be brought within any part of tn,
domain.
"The only possible inferences from tn,
language Of the petition, Including n,
prayers for relief. are that the peti
toners are seeking the Interpretation o.
an act of Congress or are seeking tn,
performance of statutory duty"
Prize Money Lost.