The Washington herald., 1912-02-10
VOICE OBJECTIONS
TO WETMORE BILL
Railway Companies Protest Against
Proposed Widening of Ben
ming Road.

The wetmore bill, providing for the
widening Of Benning road to a width of
1lO feet from Fifteenth street east 20
| Oklahoma avenue, was the object about
which a lively fight was waged yester-
day morning at the meeting Of the Sen
ate District Committee. It had been an
nounced that a hearing on the bill would
be granted, and the hackers and oppo-
| nents Of the measure turned out in full
force. AT one time the arguments for
and against the measure became so heat
cd that Senator Gallinger, chairman of
the committee, was forced 10 interfere
and order that only one person be al
lowed TO talk at a time.
District Commissioners Rudolph and
Judson and Nathaniel Wilson, represent
ing owners Of property along Benning
road, appeared in behalf Of the bill. and
George w. Williams. former receiver for
the Washington, Baltimore and Annapo-
lis Railroad. and now its attorney; c.
P. King, president Of the Washington
Railway and Electric Company, and
Paul Y. Waters, representing the Chesa-
peake Beach Railway, appeared to argue
against the measure.
To Assess Property.
1t is provided in the wetmore bill that
the cost OF the land to be condemned for
the widening of the road be assessed
against nearby property as benefits.
This is radically different from a bill
passed by Congress in 1905, authorizing
the widening of the road as soon as 30
per cent of the property necessary for
the improvement should be dedicated TO
the District. The amount Of land re-
qulred was not dedicated, and the Wet
more bill is intended to have the i'm
provement made and its cost looked
after when the work Is completed.
The objections of the railroad COM
panies were that the passage OF the bill
would make necessary changes in the
tracks now in use thereby entaiIing
the measure, II passed, would remove
three of the five tracks of the Washing
ton, Baltimore. and Annapolis road at
the Fifteenth street terminal and would
cut the station in two, without cent Of
compensation being paid the company.
The provision of assessment against
nearby property. he said, would result
in the company being allowed a certain
sum as damages. then being assessed a
similar amount to pay the claim allowed.
He stated that the company now has
S1I2. 900 invested in its terminal at Fif-
teenth and II streets northeast
TrnfIc Not COnEested.
Mr.. King objected to the Improvement
on the ground that it was not needed.
He read a statement from the owner of
a large tract of land abutting in Ben
ming road along that portion to be Wild
ened, in which the owner stated that he
had watched the traffic along the street
and had at no time seen any signs OF
congestion Mr.. King stated that his
company would lose about s60,69O II the
bill went through.
Mr.. Waters told the committee that
his company still retained the right to
use the terminal of the Baltimore. Wash
ington and Annapolis Company, and that
II this terminal were cut in hail. as
stated by Mr.. Williams, his company
would lose thereby.
The Commissioners questioned all OF
the railroad men, and Mai. Judson stated |
that the companies had known Of the |
plan to widen Benning road at the time |
the terminal was built, and that there |
fore they had gone ahead with the work |
at their own risk.
Nathaniel King showed maps Of the |
section in question to demonstrate the |
necessity OF the improvement, and told |
The committee that the right of way OF |
the railway company cuts on all exit
from his property to the Benning road.