Evening star., 1913-11-13
UPHOLDS VALIDITY
OF TRANSFER LAW
Capital Traction Company Is
Required to Obey 1t,
Court Decides.
is NOT SUCH A BURDEN
AS TO BE CONFISCATI0N
Sustains Power of Congress to Regu-
late Operation of Capitals
Street Railways.

ce;,ad a decided ..boost'' today when the
Court of AppeaIs of the District of CO.
lumbia declared constitutional the act OF
Congress which compels reciprocal trans
fers between the Metropol tan Coach
Company and the Capital Traction COM
pany In an opinion by Chlef Jusuce
Shepard the appellate court reverses the
decision of Judge Mullowny of the Police
Court which has held the act to be un-
constitutional because it amounted to the
Taking Of private property without due
process OF law.
An appeal TO the United States Supreme
Court will be noted by the Capital Trac-
tion Company.
Among the contentious of the traction
company was one that the requirement
for il to transport passengers on
free transfer was UNCONSTITUTIONAL anu
would impose a hardship on that com
panv because Of the great disparity In
thu. number of passengers carried on
its line as comp red with the numbel
OF persons using the herdics of the
coach company.
Not Without Compensation.
Chief Justice Shepard holds that the
transfers provided by the law are not
wi hout compensation to the Capital
ranEement is reciprocal Passengers
on e ch line are required. the court
points out. 10 be carried on the other
ard the arrangement might be mu-
tu%fN advantageous
Again. the court held there exists no
contract between the United States and
the railroad company which Is impaired
by the provisions OF the transfer law.
The constitutional prohibition against inn
pairing the obligations of contract the
court suggests, applies 10 the states, but
not 10 the United States. contract
cannot be implied. says Chief Justice
Shepard from the provision fixing a
maximum rate of fare merely, and II
a contract could be imp led it was subject
to the express power reserved IN the char-
ter OF the Iapital Traction Company to
alter amend. or repeal The court cited
a number of decisions Of the United
States Supreme Court on this proposition.
Failed to Show Deprivation.
The main point in the case, accordine
TO the opinion of the court, is whether
the law requiring the Capital Traction
Company to carry. without additional
compensation, passengers on transfers
from another line amounts to depriva-
tion of property without due process OF
law The court holds that it does not
amount to deprivation. In support there
of the chief justice pointed out that the
public highways are designed for the con
venience of all citizens. and the operation
Of street cars therein furnishes an addi-
tional convenience for the intended uses
OF the streets.
Instead of the governmental construc-
ton and maintenance of such additiona
convenfences.' said the chief justice
.<congress has preferred to delegate the
exercise OF the power to private corpora
ions These ors anized primarily for
private profit nevertheless perform a
public function, which renders them sub
ject 70 regulation and control by the
noWer from which they derive their priv
ilsges This power of regulation relates
not Only TO fares. but also To the mainte-
nance of tracks, schedules. etc. and con-
neetions with other lines in aid OF the
public safety. comfort and convenience
Law Held Reasonable.
TIE exercise of the power of regula-
ton, the court holds. does not abridge
the right OF private ownership. 1t is
only when such regulation renders the
property unremunerative that the regu
lation becomes unreasonable, it is stated
and deprives I { company CT its prop
erty without due process of Law.
.lF Gt-ilL llluS tHdl III the pItStIl
case the regulation is not unreasonable
because il is not 10 be presumed. i
suggests, that the loss incurred by rea-
son OF such transfers will render the
business Of the Capital Traction Com
pany unremunerative as whole.
In concluding his opinion. Chief JUS
tce Shepard says: Congress apparent
ly resaI.vd the new arrangement as adj
rri ayd
sengeT. In the absence OF facts show
Ing that tile regulation imposes an un-
reasonable burden upon the defendant
in error amounting 10 a deprivation OF
property IN the constitutional sense We
are not prepared to say that il was be-
yond the power of Congress TO enact"
Arose in Police Court.
The case decided today arose in IN,
Police Court after complaint OF severa
citizens that the traction company hat
refused 10 honor transfers issued by tho
Metropolitan Coach Company under tn,
law of August Il 1912 The Distric
filed an Information III the Police Cour
and the traction company made "A motor
10 quash on the theory OF the unconst ii
tutichadty of the enactment. Judge Mul
ioWny sustained the contention of I'll,
traction company and the District note,
an appeal
The argument of this appeal las
month was the last official act of tn,
1oTmer corporation counsel, Edward II
Thomas. and the reversal is regardee
as signal victory for Mr. Thona :
Assistant Corporation Counsel STEPHEN,
aided MIR. Thomas In the preparatior
OF the case for hearing Attorneys r
Ross Perry * son and G. Thomas Dun
ConrSany.