Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-02-28
DOUBT RIGHT TO SUE
Utilities Company Attorneys
Question Act of District
IN RAILWAY MERGER CASE
Seeking of Injunction Subject Of
Attack in Equity Court.
ACTION IS ALSO DEFENDED
Justice Barnard Hears Arguments
on Both Sides, But Withholds
His Decision.

The right of the District of Columbia
to maintain a suit for Injunction 20 pre-
vent the proposed merger" Of the local
public service corporations with the
Washington Utilities Company, fifty
million dollar corporation recently organ
ized in Virginia, was questioned and de-
Tended in extensive arguments today be-
fore Justice E1rnard in Equity Court No.
/. The hearing came up on demurrers
filed by the Utilities Company, the Wash
ington Railway and Electric Company.
William 3. Hibbs, Clarence p. King and
other defendants, in which the right of
the District to maintain its suit is chal-
lenged
Corporation Counsel Thomas defended
the right of the District TO maintain
the injunction and to prevent the pro-
posed merger. which he claims exceeds
the limitations of the consolidation act
of 1900, and which would put the Dis
trict to a disadvantage In the collection
of its taxes. He said the object of the
merger is to evade the laws Of the Dis
trict.
Attorney Gardner L. Boothe Of Alex
andria, Va. denied the right of the Dis
trict to interfere with his company, the
Washington Utilities Company. In the
exercise of corporate powers conferred
on it by it's charter granted by the
state of Virginia.
Fails to Show Violations.
Attorney Joseph j. Darlington for the
local public service corporations named
as defendants in the bill. claimed that
the allegations of the bill fail to show
wherein the Districts rights have been
violated by the proposed sale Of stock
in the local corporations to the utilities
company. He denied to the District the
'visitoriar' power over the local cor
porations which it assumes to exercise in
its complaint to the court.
Attorney A. s. worthington argued in
behalf OF William B. Hibbs, who is large
| ly interested in the Washington Utilities
Company. He characterized his remarks
as few pertinent observations in refu-
tation of various alleged nefarious com
binations' charged against his client
Justice Barnard reserved his decision.
! Gardner L. Boothe of Alexandra, Va.
| secretary and attorney for the utilities
| against the Districts right to interfert
| in the proposed purchase by. the utllitie:
| company of the stock Of the local public
| service corporations.
! He outlined in detail the powers of the
municipality and quoted decisions of the
District Court of Appeals to show that
| the powers are limited. He urged that
the municipal powers of the District are
narrower than those of the average mu-
nicipality in the states.
| Districts Power Limited.
| One of the decisions quoted by Mr.
Boothe tended to show that the District 8
powers are only such as are expressly
conferred by statute. he cOntended, and
such as may reasonably be implied to
carry out the expressed powers.
Mr. Boothe explained to the court that
| the charter of the Utilities Company
] granted by the state of Virginia em-
powered that corporation to purchase
stock of other corporations. He denied
that the stock of the Washington Rail-
| wy and Electric Company would be IL
| legally increased by it's purchase by the
Virginia corporation. He claimed that
the United States alone is empowered
to question the right Of the local corpo-
ration to- enter into a contract to sell
it's stock to the Virginia holding COM
pany.
Should his company purchase the stock
and then make any use of it which would
injure the District, he asserted. the mu-
nicipality has it's full remedy in dam
ages to be secured in proceeding at law
The District has no standing in equity
he ayerred.