Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-10-18
INTERESTS REPRESENTED
IN EQUITY COURT NO. 2
Corporation Counsel Thomas Is Pres
ent for the District.
JURISDICTION IS QUESTIONED
Motion Made by Defendant Company
to Dismiss Quo Warranto Pro-
ceedings Argued at
Length.

Justice Wright of the District Supreme
Court today devoted the entire session OF
Equity Court No. to the hearing of ar
guments on the question of universal
transfers in Washington as incorp orat ed
in petition of Arthur l.. Shreve, receiver
of the Baltimore and Washington Transit
Company, to compel the Capital Traction
Company to make reciprocal transfer ar
The hearing was ON a motion of the
Capital Traction Company to dismiss the
petition of the receiver on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction in the court. The
company also contends that even If the
court has jurisdiction it should disregard
the petition of the receiver, as the enact
mentS of Congress relied on are unCon-
stitutional and there is no physical con-
nection between the two lines as contem-
plated in the act requiring mutual trans
fers on connecting lines of street rail-
ways.
Chamber of Commerce Represented.
Attorney Henry w. Williams of Balti-
more and Attorney Harry F. Lerch of the
local bar represented the receiver. At
torneys r. Ross Perry & Son and G. T.
Dunlop appeared specially for the Cap
ital Traction Company to attack the
courts jurisdiction. Attorney Charles w.
Darr, for the Chamber of Commerce was
present in court.
Before Attorney G. T. Dunlop for the
traction company opened the argument
Corporation Counsel Thomas addressed
the court. Mr.. Thomas stated the Dis
" M q o~f,, -
Quested that If the hearing developed the
question OF the right of Congress. to re-
qulre the issuance of reciprocal transfers
by independent railway companies in the
District he would ask the privilege of
filing q brief setting forth the position
of the District Commissioners on that
matter.
Justice Wright declared he could not
anticipate the raising of that question,
and so could not say in advance whether
he cared to have the brief suggested.
When the hearing had progressed to that
point the court said Mr.. Thomas might
renew his application and a decision
would be rendered on the request.
Explains the Districts Interest.
Mr.. Thomas took the position that
while the District of Columbia has no
right to interfere in this suit respecting
the controversy between the two rail-
roads, yet the municipal authorities are
interested in protecting the right Of Con-
gress to legislate on the subject of trans
fers between independent railway lines
The brief he desired to file. Mr.. Thomas
said, would deal entirely with the right
of Congress to legislate on universal
transfers.
Attorney George T. Dunlop opened the
argument. and after reading the petition
of the transit company and the response
of his company asking the dismissal of
the petition for lack of jurisdiction took
up the motion of counsel for the re-
ceivers to strike out the motion to dis
miss on the plea that ii does not accord
with any known pleading in equity.
II am free to say the motion is not
said Mr.. Dunlop land for the reason that
We are not In equity. The petition does
not set up an equitable case. The only
thing the receiver seems to ask Is the re-
quirement of specific performance of
statute and shows no irreparable damage
to be done to the transit company"
Mr.. Dunlap suggested that the petition
should have been filed on the law side of
the court, either in mandamus or by quo
warrantO..
Before proceeding with his argument
Mr.. Dunlap handed to Justice Wright
printed brief of the position of the trac-
tion company and also a brief filed by
Corporation Counsel Thomas in the Court
the first time a writ of prohibition against
the Washington Gas Light Company
when it sought to have the District Su-
preme Court determine the value of the
company's plant.
IE that case the appellate court held
Congress could not require the judiciary
to perform non-judicial function. The
claim of the Capital Traction Company
that the court cannot entertain the refer
ence to act as arbitrator between two
vol f1-ro ,t1c Z.
on RECIPROCAL transfer arrangements will
be based on this decision, it is expected
Court Asked to Fix Fare.
Mr. Dunlop contended that by the
petition Of the receiver the court is
asked to establish another rate of
fare than the specific one fixed by
Congress. He declared Congress had
allowed the Capital Traction Company
the right to collect cents or a ticket
for carrying a passenger from 14th
and Kennedy streets to any other point
OIL its line. To require 1t to accept a
transfer from another line not phys
ically connected with it and with
which no contractual relations exist
would be to compel the traction COM
pany to accept a smaller fare than
Congress has settled.
Mr.. Dunlop here argued the point that
the petition was not properly brought in
equity, citing many decisions which held
analogous proceedings to belong to the
law side of the court. The argument so
appealed TO Justice Wright that he de-
cided &c halt the general argument ana
confne counsel 10 discussion of whet her
or not equity could entertain the petition
Justice Wright told counsel for the
receiver that he was impressed with
the point made by Mr.. Dunlop, and
would hear counsel for the receiver
OH that point. Attorney r. Ross Perry
told the court that he would deplore
the delay that would ensue if the case
went off now on this technicality
Justice Wright responded that II would
not be becoming in an equity court to
decide the limit Of Jurisdiction Of
law court.
Attorney Williams Argument.
Attorney II. w. Williams was reply
ing to the question Of forum when
this report closed. He claimed equity
was the only resort left to the re-
ceiver and that he had no standing iE