The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1911-12-26
WRIGHT D|SM|SSES
TRANSFER SU|T,LAW
LACKS, HIS RULING
Sees No Way to Make Capt.
tai Traction Company
Reciprocate.
Continued from First Page


sengers onward for continuous ride
Rules for Capital Company.
Relative to a motion Of the plaintiff
to strike out the paper filed by the
counsel for the Capital Traction Com
pany on the ground that It was an i'm
proper pleading in equity. Justice
Wright held that the motion was In
accord with practice. He held that
1t was not only in accord with prac-
tice. 'but It is the only method calcu-
lated to lay before the bar challenge
to the jurisdiction over the subject mat
ter"
Justice Wright, in concluding his
In view Of his decision to decide the
constitutional questions which were so
sxhaustively argued by counsel in the
hearings. He says: Mention of the
argument 10 made only to convey to
counsel the assurance of an appropriate
appreciation by the court OF the advan-
tages Of their labors had the require
n,ents Of the case called for the ex-
animation of those subjects"
Harry F. Lerch, one Of the counsel
for the receiver of the Baltimore and
Washington Transit Company, had not
had time Mt a late hour this afternoon
to read Justice Wright's opinion. To II
reporter for The Times he said that he
the other attorney for the receiver.
Henry w. williams. Of Baltimore, before
deciding as to future action.
Motions Before Court.
Virtually two motions were before
the court, one to dismiss the suit of
the receiver of the Baltimore and
Washington Transit Company to COM
pei the Capital Traction Company to
issue transfers at Fourteenth and
Kennedy streets northwest and the
other to strike out the pleadings Of
the defendant.
Relative to the motion to dismiss
counsel for the Capital Traction
Company contended the court had no
jurisdiction. 1t was further urged
that even II the court had iurisdic-
, ton. 1t should disregard the petition
OF the receiver, as the enactments
OF Congress relied upon are uncon-
stitutional and that there is no phys
ical connection between the two lines
as contemplated In the act requiring
mutual transfers on connecting lines
Of street railroads within the District.
Attorneys for the Baltimore and
thas the Sismis a notion Spa of the IssS dec
PENDANT was not proper pleading in
equity. To this counsel for the de-
16ndant conceded with the counter
long 10 Equity court t'' ''' D' '
Original Action.
The original suit seeking to test the
right Of the Transit Company to de-
n,and the issuance Of transfers to its
passengers at Fourteen and Kennedy
streets was filed August 81 last. at the
suggestion Of Justice Stafford. OF the
District Supreme Court. Arthur =.
shrsve. receiver Of the suburban COM
pany, was plaintiff In the action, which
sought reciprocal transfer relations be-
tween the two railway companies.
It was set forth in the petition that
. universal transfer law was enacted
in 1884 approved August 2, that year.
It was provision in the law enabling
the Metropolitan Railroad Company to
ground electric equipment.
The particular provision on which the
litigation 10 based reads:
rrovideG that hat every street railway
whose lines connect. or whose lines may
hereafter connect. with the lines Of any
other street railway company. Is here
By subjected to the same requirements
as to transfers and trackage arrange
ments and upon similar conditions, as in
this section provided in the case Of the
Metropolitan Railroad Company and the
lines connecting Herewith"
Petition Amended.
On October ~ the original petition
was amended In order to present to the
court the same facts as were involved in
the case Of the Chicago Street Railway
Company against Blair. which was re-
Gently decided by the United States Su-
preme Court. the idea being to set forth
GROUNDS for an equity proceeding. This
was done by claiming that the property
rights Of transit company were de-
pendent upon the right Of the company
with the Capital Traction Company, as
With such an arrangement the road
1D4ld be operated or sold at a profit.
Arguments against the contentious of
the receiver. wore based principally on
the proposition that the charter of the
Capital Traction Company, approved
June 20. 1883. which was prior to the al
legged universal transfer law of 1894,
constituted q valid contract between the
could neither be impaired nor ahrogat-
ed.
Lines Not Connected.
Much stress was also laid on the fact
that there Is no actual physical con-
nection between the Baltimore and
washington Transit Company and the
Capital Traction Company at Four
teenth and Kennedy streets, and that
any transfer issued by the latter com.
pany would necessarily be given free
II was denied that Congress had the
right to make any such arrangement
or In any Wise void the company's char
ter Of 1883 It was emphattcally de-
clared by Attorney r. Ross Perry fol
the defendant company that Congress
could not enact universal transfer leg
islation and make II constitutional
Attorney Henry w. Williams. Of Bal.
timore, and Attorney Harry f. Lerch, Of
the local bar, argued the motions I'm be-
half of Receiver Shreve, although Cor
poration Counsel z. III. Thomas was
present in an advisory capacity. ano
asked permission to file a brief In the
case In the event of the defendant com
pany contrasting the right of Congress
to empower the District Commissioner
to regulate and control public utilities
Mr.. Thomas said that the District hac
no right to interfere In a controversy
between two railway companies such a:
the one in question.
Appearing In behalf Of the Chamber o.
Commerce was Attorney Charles w
Darr. but he offered no arguments IN
the case.
Arguments supporting the claims o.
the Capital Traction Company were
presented by Attorneys r. Ross PER-!