Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-09-15
NOT A LOCAL ISSUE
Controversy Over Street Car
Transfers Goes to |. C.. C..
AN INTERSTATE PROBLEM
Petition Of B. & w. Transit Company
Attacked in Court by Capt.
tai Traction Company.

The interstate commerce commission
was today asked to pass upon the cues
ton of the interchange of transfers be-
tween the Baltimore and Washington
Transit Company and the Capital Trac-
ton Company. The matter came to the
attention of the interstate commerce COM
mission from the District street railway
commission. with which complaint had
been filed by resident of Takoma Park
1t being alleged that the Capital Traction
Company had refused to accept transfers
at 18th and Kennedy streets northwest
from the Baltimore and Washington
Transit Company
Not a Distric: Issue.
The District commission decided that
the matter was an interstate question,
since the Baltimore and Washington
Transit Company operates in Maryland.
and that properly the question should be
passed upon by the interstate commerce
commission as an interstate matter.
Under it's charter. which was last
amended few days after the act giving
the District street railway and the inter
state commerce commission authority
over the street railways was passed
by Congress- the affairs OF the Baltimore
and Washington Transit Company, so
far as the District is concerned. are
placed under the care of the District
Commissioners.
Problem in Allegiance.
| Secretary Eddy of the District street
| railway commission said today that in
view of this fact he did not believe the
District street railway commission could
act in the case concerning the Baltimore
and Washington Transit Company. He
said that the fight for universal transfers
| in the District had not been called to the
attention of the street railway commits
sion officially, SO far. However, it Is pos
sibIe that the commission may take the
matter up later.
Proceedings in Court.
That the District Supreme Court is
without jurisdiction to entertain the petit
ton for reciprocal transfer angements
made by Arthur l.. Shreve. receiver of
the Baltimore and Washington Transit
Company, is the position taken today by
| the Capital Traction Company. Attor-
neys r. Ross Perry &, Son and G. T. Dun
lop this afternoon entered special APP
pearance for the company for the pur-
pose of attacking the jurisdiction of the
missal Of the petition for lack Of jurisdic-
ton in the court.
The company claims the receivers Pc
| tition sets up no ground for general
| equity relief, and claims the request OF
| the receiver does not constitute recog-
niZed species Of relief to be afforded by
| a court in equity. Congress has con-
ferred no such jurisdiction on the District
| Supreme Court as is claimed by the re-
| ceiver. the traction people contend.
| Neither the act of August ., 1894, nor the
act of May %. 1903. confers the jurisdic-
ton claimed. according to the contention
| of the traction company.
Unconstitutionality Alleged.
If the acts did attempt to confer the
Jurisdiction claimed by the receiver or
did attempt to provide for free trans
fers. it is contended, such attempted
action would be unconstitutional and
void. Counsel points out that the
charter of the company provides that
it shall receive rate of fare not eX-
ceeding cents or six tickets for %
cents for each continuous ride between
all points on its main or branch line.
This provision it is claimed, constitutes
a contract between the company and the
United States, and any attempt to impair
1T would be a violation of section III,
article I. Of the Constitution.
Any attempt to make the Capital Trac-
ton Company receive free transfers from
the Baltimore and Washington Transit
Company it is commended, would amount
to compelling that company to carry pas
sengers free in violation of article of
the Constitution. Such action, 1t is claim
ed, would constitute in law deprivation
of the company's property without due
process of law.
No Judicial Power Conferred.
The power attempted to be conferred
by the act of 1894 on the District SUI
preme Court. the traction company's at
torneys point out. is not a judicial power
within the meaning of the Constitution,
and cannot therefore lawfully be exercised
by that court, or any justice thereof The
further claim is made that the proceed
ing in and by the petition of the receiver
is not ease" within the meaning of the
law of which the District Supreme Court
nn,,la take cOgniZance.