Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1912-04-12
Mr.. Lamar Again Replies.

Mr. Editor Mr. Henderson SUGGESTS that
our controversy is becoming somewhat
personal" He alone has made il So From
the beginning of his first article to the end
of his last one the language of the FISH
market and the methods of the sophist
have been too nearly approached by him
to permit clean and fair discussion of mat
tiers of public interest.
What are the factsY Some weeks ago
published in your paper an entirely imper-
sonal statement in explanation of bill
which had prepared affecting our electric
railroad rates. The Act to be amended was
properly referred to as the Henderson law,
as he had prepared and introduced it in the
Legislature. The present bill proposes to
give back to the commuters the rates they
have lost under the operation of the Hen
derson law, and at the same time preserve to
those who are dependent upon this line for
transportation the present is cent cash
rate, by the use of family tickets, which
are available at the small outlay of one
dollar, for ten round trips, over the two
short zones. and good for any family or
household from the head of the family down
to the cook. They may be used at any
time within one year from the date of pur-
chase
If Mr.. Henderson had any valid objection
to this bill. of course he had perfect right
to use the public press in making his views
known. II | were in error as to the effect
of his law. he had an equal right to show
that fact. But here is how he began his
article in injecting himself into this con-
| troversy:
"Mr. VIM. H. Lamar makes a statement
that the raise in communication rates on the
electric railroad between this town and
| Wno ind rvN .ss,A - Al.
bill which he takes great JUNCTION in refer
ring to as the Henderson bill, passed at the
last session of the State Legislature. will
ask the privilege of occupying a few lines
of your paper in giving a short history of
this (his) bill, in order that your readers
may pass judgment between Mr. Lamar
and myself on this question"
Now, so far as my article was concerned,
the only question" which could possibly
have been raised between Mr. Henderson
and myself was whether had erred in
calling the present law by his name or
whether there had been mistake in draft
ing that law which permitted the railroad
to raise the Communication rates. But Mr..
Henderson occupied nearly a column of
your paper in lodging these propositions and
in working in all kinds of slurs at me with
out touching upon the pending bill, which
was the matter before the public for con-
sderatiOn. He has, therefore, practically
sidetracked the pending bill and brought
on instead discussion of his own legisla-
tive record upon former bill. To this
have no objection, If he desires to give pub
licity to it, for he has said enough about it
himself to show that he is peculiarly vul-
nerable on this point. | must say, how
ever, that there is little satisfaction in dis
cussing a matter with one who. when
ccrnered upon one proposition, slides off to
another equally untenabie. To argue with
him would be like chasing the will-o'-the-
wisp but for the bile he leaves in his trail
in the shape of personalities and his red
hot denial of immaterial facts, however
susceptible of proof.
When Mr.. Henderson rejected my amend
ment to his bill, which, as have shown,
would have protected the commuters in their
existing rates, he took upon himself the
full responsibility for the failure of his law
to protect them. This responsibility he
cannot avoid. Whatever he may have said
about ii at the time is immaterial, and he
should be man enough to accept that re-
spOnsibility without quibbling about the
matter. He was member of the COM
mittee on corporations and did insist upon
having his own bill reported out of that
committee in preference to the one drawn
| by me. and 1t is idle for him to try to leave
| the public to believe that he tried to have
that measure drawn by me reported, which
would have protected the Communication
rates. What he may have said about this
matter at the time is also immaterial. His
conduct spoke louder than any words he
may have uttered at that time to me- So
let us not befog the issue by questions of
veracity on these points.
If my recollection Of Mr.. HendersOn's
basis for fixing the Communication rate for
his bill Is not correct, as he states, will he
kindly advise the public by what course of
reasoning he arrived at the remarkable
conclusion that two-thirds of the cash fare
was not greater than the then existing COM
mutation rate Or was the rate provided for
in his bill merely wild guess on his part
In any event he should not forget that his
action is costing every commuter from
Rockville $3.50 year. and that the other
commuters along the line of the road are
losing in the same way. They have reason
to feel that whatever may have been his
judgment at the time as to the effect of
his bill. now that Its actual effect has been
demonstrated In practice, he should help
to rectify the error rather than try TO throw
obstacles in the way of a new measure
drawn to bring about that result.
Is he opposed to the relief sought by the
commuters II not, after his failure why Is
he not willing at least to stand aside and let
| someone else try to restore the rates which
he has caused them to lose
Mr.. Henderson cannot understand why
| II is not easier to sustain the constitution
atty Of a Communication rate Of 3 IS cents
| for each fare zone than il would be for
rate Of 2 1-8 cents Here again he de-
monstrates his wonderful legal capacity.
II, as has been shown the railroad was, in
fact. voluntarily giving the public the latter
rate over Its longest zone, II certainly
could not be heard in any court to say that
the z Id cents was an unreasonable rate,
but Mr. Henderson entirely misses the point
at issue. II was not that the accumulation
rate was unreasonable, as he suppOses,
but the contention Of the company was
that the Legislature had no power to fix
any rate except maximum cash rate,
which latter must not be so low as to be
cOnfiscatOry, and that all other passenger
rates must necessarily be optional with the
company.
This, in my opinion. is not good law Our
Legislature has just repudiated any such
contention.
The Bethesda Citizens Association has
not turned down" the present bill, as
stated by Mr.. Henderson On the contrary,
all Of the people in that section and many
Of those in Rockville appear to be highly
pleased with II, as was demonstrated by
the unanimously signed petition sent to
the Legislature in its favor.
II is all right. suppose. for Mr. Hender-
son TO suggest another method Of protect
ing the commuters now, upon the adjourn
ment Of the Legislature. when he has failed
for weeks and months to do so while il was
in session. His plan, however, is fatally
defective in that II contains nothing which
would put an end TO the expensive litiga-
ton over the matter Of the regulation Of
rates on this road, which has been in prog
ress from the passage Of his law to the
present time.
Again, Mr. Henderson says
1 - 4 Il