The Washington times., 1911-10-19


the motion to dismiss the transfer liti-
cation i'm the District Supreme Court
will not be completed today. but will
80 over until next week. as counsel on
both sides are determined to fll the
record with data on all phases Of the
controversy for appellate purposes.
1t is obvious that in any event the
case will be carried 10 the District Court
of Appeals. although 1t is not expected
that Justice Dan Thew Wright will rem
der an opinion until he has reviewed
the case.
Arguments today were on the motion
81 the Capital Traction Company to
Washington Transit Company to COM
pei reciprocal transfer relations be-
tween the two companies. The court
aas heard the on shs
the pleadfngs Of the defendant.
Attorney @: Thomas Dunlop finished
his argumentin behalf Of the traction
company fo1 this morning, and he was fol
plaintiff Attorney r. Ross Perry will
close for the defendant.
The counsel Tor the traction company
pages pas Ss SntsS ntehca ssss Ga d iss
over each point in great detail.
Answers Contentious.
Attorney Harry F. Lerch. representing
the transit company, spoke at length in
opposition to the motion to dismiss the
suit, directing the greater part of his ar
gument to the contention that he char
ter of the Capital Traction Company con-
sdtutes q contract with the United
States which Congress cannot impair. He
held that Congress had reserved the
ing the charter and had taken advan-
tage Of this power.
That reciprocal transfer relations be.
tween the two lines does not necessarily
by Attorney Lerch. He Nssserted that
an act Of 1908 contains provisions that
the two lines In conjunction may be
entitled to charge one fare. and that
there saoud be division of that that rate
Congress never had in view such a
thing as compelling the one line to carry
free passengers from other lines without
Of the ae said sSfh Mr. hepeh
would mean that Congress willfully
passed an unconstitutional statute.
Relative to the authority Of Congress
Of public service corporations, Mr.
Lerch declared that such right could
The contention was made by the at
strued directly opposite from the con-
the Capital Traction Company, who
claim that the act should be held strict
ly in favor Of the alleged contract rights
States Supreme Court has held uniformly
that every reasonable doubt is to be
resolved adversely to the corporation
and %,tb N rs;.snot fsySr Of the puHli9 ~
Dartmouth College case. in which
Daniel webster appeared and deliver
ed one Of the most powerful arguments
in American Jurisprudence, Attorney
Lerch contended that the decision Is
virtually obsolete. as the charter con.
tained no reservations, whereas rights
to alter and amend are now reserved
by nearly every legislative body.
Cites Cases.
Attorney Lerch cited numerous cases
from the United States Supreme Court
to prove his contention that Congress
| has the right to regulate rates and
/ charges on every street railway com.
pany in the District. He stated thai
this power comes from the clauses
contained In the charters. which re-
serve the right to repeal, alter, or
amend at any time.
The question Of constitutionality wcs
then dismissed by the counsel, who re.
verted to the refusal of the traction
company to enter into reciprocal re.
| lations with the transit company
despite the fact that numerous appeals
| have been made to this end by repre-.
sentatives of the latter corporation.
Until the experiment of issuing trans.
fers from one line to the other has
| been tried it is unfair to assume that
the policy would be confiscatcry. de-
clared Mr.. Lerch. He said that tho
Supreme Court Of the United States
had repeatedly taken this view in deal.
| inv with litigation involving rates and
charges of public utility corporations
''In the most recent cases the United
States Supreme Court has held that |,
| could not assume statutes affectins
rate regulation to he unreasonable un.
less the law had been put into practi.
cal operation" he said. I'm this cas-:
relations has been denied the transi,
company.
"The Transit Company has offered tc
| indemnify the Traction Company against
! any loss by reason Of a transfer sys.
| tenn we proposed, but even then the
| company refused. For that reason, ever
| though such legislation could be held tc
| be unconstitutional, 1t could not be done
| in this instance, as we stand ready tc
see that the system would not be con.
fiscatory.'
Talks on Charter Rights.
| Mr.. Lerch then took up the question
involving the charter rights of the two
contending companies. He said the