Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-01-12
SPLIT ON TRANSFERS.
Citizens at Variance on Bill
Before Congress.
Three MEASURES DEBATED
Hearing Before the Senate Commit
tee on District Affairs.
DIFFERENCES OVER DETAILS

L
fers and Division of Fares Be-
tween Competing Companies.
l A wide divergence of opinion regard
ing transfer legislation was presented
to the Senate District committee this
morning during a public hearing OF
the universal transfer bill pending be-
fore Congress.
| The Commissioners Gallinger bill
was advocated by some, the citizens
| conference bill by others, and repre-
sentatives of the two main traction
companies in the District were there
| to oppose both measures
| Questions asked by members of the
committee indicated that pany of them
will be opposed to that feature of the
citizens bill requiring a division of the
fare, on the half and hall basis. in case
a transfer is issued by one company to
another. and several senators took oc-
casion to point out instances of specific
injustice which would result.
The hearing was technically on the Gal
| linger and Works bills, and the chief diff.
ference between them is that the latter
allows a transfer on a transfer and the
former does not. But the citizens con
ference measure was brought in, and il
differs from both of the others in tha
it provides specifically for division of the
fare in case of transfer from one com.
pany to another.
Darr Leads the Discussion.
Charles w. Darr. representing citi-
zens conference on universal transfer,
was the first speaker. At that time only
three members Of the committee were
present, Senators Gallinger. Curtis and
Pomerene.
Early in his remarks. 1t became evil
dent that the hearing was to deal
largely with the relative merits of the
two main universal transfer PROPOSE
tions-the Gallinger bill and the citi-
zens' conference bill. Senator Works
came in soon after Mr. Darr began
speaking.
Responding to questions by Senator
Gallinger, Mr.. Darr admitted he was
advocating no bill now before the COM
mittee. but was in favor of the cltl-
zens bill as a substitute. Then he pro
! CceU0u 10 tOiSc oUJCOSiOhS ~ eAAS NS@A
linger bill
After he had referred to the measure
several times. Senator Gallinger inter-
rupted him:
''While / introduced the BILL he said,
Il would prefer you would refer to it
as the Commissioners bill.
| The first objection to the Commission
| ers' bill raised by Mr. Darr was that
It did not allow the issuance OF a Trans
fer on a transfer. even though the pas
senger was going on continuous jour-
ney in one general direction
isn't that provided for in the Commits minis
| lRead the provision which says that
| free transfers shall be issued, inter
| changeable from the line OF lines of one
| company to the line or lines of an
other.
Required by General Law.
George E. Hamilton got into the dis
cussion by stating that his company is
sues a transfer on a transfer for con-
tinuous trip in one general direction. and
that it was required by general law.
Answering Mr.. Curtis question. Mr.
Darr pointed out the additional provision
Of the bill that the companies shall
have the right to stipulate that such
transfer shall be used only in continual
ton Of the trip on the line for which
from travelling from one point to an
| other and return on one fare
Mr.. Hamilton asked if. under the plar
for a transfer on a transfer, it would
not be possible for a passenger to ride
| from Tenleytown to the downtown sec.
| ton of the city and thence out to Chevy
Chase on one fare.
THAT might be DONE" admitted Mr.
Darr, but 1t would be done only by the
| few. l am asking you to legislate fol-
the many. Unless some wanted to &c
| out on q JOY ride, l cannot conceive tina,
many will abuse the provision for q
| transfer on a transfer
| Let me ask" interrupted Senator
| Pomerene, IF there would not be many
| who would take the cars in weather such
as we had in Washington last summer .
II don't know what are the habits OF
| the people," replied Mr.. Darr. Il don't
| have time to do that
| Don't you know there are thousands
| in Washington who do that in SUMMER?
Senator Gallinger remarked
| Senator Martin asked if there were
many cases where the issuance Of a
| transfer on a transfer was necessary,
| and Mr.. Darr's reply was that they were
large enough in number to make the pro-
| vision necessa y.
| When Senator Gallinger asked Mr.
Darr to consider the citizens confer
ence bill Senator Works interp osed to
suggest another objection to the Com
missioners' bill-that the putting Of Its
Iprovisions into effect by the railway
/ companies could De postponed indeh-
nitely.
rs it not to be assumed. then, SEN
ator Gallinger asked, sarcastically
that the railway companies are going
to do the square thing?"
I'VE are required, under that bill. to
put it into effect within thirty days
President Hamilton remarked.
Question Of Dividing Fares.
When Mr.. Darr took up the citizens
conference bill the question OF a di-
vision OF fare Immediately came up
Mr.. Darr said that the conference bill
lprovides for an exact half-and-half di
vision Of fares-that Is, a transfer is
sued to another company must be re-
deemed for 2 112 cents. or half the
price of a ticket. That provision was
put in, Mr. Darr explained, because
Judge Wright of the District Supreme
Court, in q recent decision having tc
do with universal transfers. held that
1.-The fixing Of the division of fares was
la legislative and not judicial func-
Ition. The Commissioners bill leaves
1.-The fixing Of the division of fare to the
railway companies.
i Senator Pomerene suggested that the
public was simply interested In having
universal transfers and no. in the di.
vision Of the fare, and, therefore, it was
proper that the law should leave the
n division to the railway companies.
p. ". Heating, also representing the cti-
Re regards as a necessity for a law thai
| no IF a "a