Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-01-15
TAXI COMPANIES
RESIST CONTROL
Appeal to Court to Prevent En-.
forcement of Utilities Com
mission Order.
JURISDICTION OF BODY
CONTESTED IN APPEAL
District Officials Must Show Cause
Why Injunctions Should
Not Be Granted.

The Terminal TaNicab Company and
the Federal Taxicab Company both oper-
ating in the District of Columbia, today
prayed in the District Supreme Court for
injunctions against the public utiitIos
commission, to prevent the enforcement
of the order recently put in force by thv
commission by which tho two taxicaJ
companies are considered public utilize
over which the commission may assume
the same authority as it exercises ovss
other utilities
After hearing the petitions of the tW1
compauias justice Stafford issued a ruin
against the public utilities commission re
quirtnc that body 10 show cause Januarl
20 why the restraining orders and injunc-
lions should not be issued as prayed.
George T. Dunlop represented the
Terminal TaXicab Company, tho Federal
Company being represented by .attorre,
$. V. Hayden.
Provision of Charter.
Through Attorney Dunlop the Terminal
Taxicab Company explains TO the court
that by its charter and by the laws o.
the state Of Virginia, where it was in
corporated. it is expressly prohibited
public service corporation.
Despite this prohibition, il is stated
the utilities commission has made a.
ruling holding the company a common
carrier and requiring II within ten
days to furnish certain Information OF
its business affairs as common car
riers are required under the law I"
give when requested.
This action by the utilities commission
II is alleged, is without jurisdiction ana IL
void and should be vacated by the court
The heavy penalty of $500 for each viola
ton of an order Of the commission is 81
excessive and destructive. it is pointed
| out that 1t deters the company from as
sorting its right to ignore the alleged IN
lawful and void order and unless the
court should intervene the company Will
| be compelled to suffer exorbitant and
ruinous penalties and will sustain irrep-
arabic loss.
Would Avoid Penalties.
The court Is asked to restrain the
utilities commission from exercising any
| Jurisdiction over the company and from
taking any proceedings or passing any
orders to enforce any penalties agains'
the taxicab company.
Among the allegations of the bill o.
complaint are:
That the plaintiff is advised by counsel
and accordingly charges that all OF the
| proceedings by the defendants VINO con
stitute the public utilities commission y
the District of Columbia, were and are
without jurisdiction on their part and
therefore void; that the defendant
were without Jurisdiction to pass O.
| enact the order No. A of January 8,
1914; that the defendants are with
| out power, right or authority TO take
| or exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff.
the Terminal Taxicah Company. incorpo-
rated, for any purpose whatsoever
and especially for the purposes set OUT
in the order. No: "A, that ne.ther ane
act of Congress of the United States, ap
proved March 4, 1913, commonly known
as The public utilities act" nor section
s, 8, 10 and II thereof give or confer upof
| the defendants any Jurisdiction. power o.
authority over or with respect TO the
plaintiff.
| Not Common Carrier.
| That the plaintiff is not a common car
rier as defined in paragraph 1 of section
| s of the aforesaid act of Congress Of
March 4, 1919; that the plaintiff is nei-
| ther a corporation. street railway corpo-
ration, company, association, joint stock
| company or association. partnership OF
person, or their lessee. trustee or receiv-
| er appointed by any court whatsoever,
| owning. operating. controlling or man
| aging any agency or agencies Tor
public use for the conveyance
District OF Columbia for hire
within the meaning of the said paragraph
l Of section / of the said act of Ma ch 4.
| 1915; that the plaintiff is not engaged IN
| operating any agency for public use FOR
the conveyance of persons or property
| within the District of Columbia for hire;
| that the plaintiff is engaged only in a
private livery business and does not hold
| itself out nor undertake TO carry persons
| or property within the District of Column
| bia for hire. except by private agree
ment; that the plaintiff is not a
so-called public utility within the
| meaning of the aforesaid act OF
Congress approved March i, 1913.
Suspension Declined.
pany last Saturday to the Commission
ers. the court is told. for a suspension OF
order A., pending an appeal to the court,
but was declined in letter signed by
Chester Harding, chairman of the COM
mission. Last Tuesday the company re-
ceived the following letter from J. 1.
Schley, executive officer of the commits
sion:
In accordance with the provisions OF
paragraph "a of the law creating the
pubic utlHtieS coiHitisSio'i, bis.i III "
Columbia, you are directed to file with
this commission on or before January q
1914, a schedule showing all rates. tolls
and charges which you have established
and which are in force at this time for
any service performed by you within the
District of Columbia, or for any service
in connection herewith. or performed by
any public utility controlled or operated
by you.
You are further directed to submit
MI IA a l.
ule showing all rates, tolls and charges
established by you and in effect
March /. 1913.
The above schedules should be type
written on letter-size paper. and should
be in duplicate"
The aid Of the court is sought to pre-
vent the furnishing of such informa-
ton until the court has had an OPP
portunity to act on the appeal OF the
company