Evening star., 1916-09-12
Old Dominion Railway Ques-
tions Jurisdiction of Utilities
Body to Supervise Its Acts.
OTHERS HOLD COMMISSION
TO BE WITHIN RIGHTS
Capital Traction Company Ready to
Restore Privilege at Aqueduct
Bridge to Accommodate Public.

Other than to enter formal exception
commission in the matter. the Washing
ton and Old Dominion Railway Company
today declined to participate in a hear
ing given by that body to determine why
1t should not order a restoration OF tho
transfer service over Aqueduct bridge
between It's southern terminal and 3stl
and NJ streets northwest.
The Capital Traction Company. which
was cited to show cause jointly with
the Virginia line why the arrangement
should not be restored and fines i'm
posed upon both companies for dis
continuing it without the consent of
the commission, stated that there never
had been an agreement affecting bridge
traffic only.
Ready to Renew Plan.
Officials of this company said the arr
rangement which had been discon-
tinued was one relating to interstate
traffic: that 1t was Cancelled by the
Washington and Old Dominion COM
panl without the acQuiescence of the
Capital Traction Company. and that
time to resume it. For these reasons.
the company requested that it be ex-
empted from any liability in the mat
ter. The request was taken under ad-
visement by the commission.
| Attorney Wilton j. Lambert opened
the proceedings by appearing for the
Washington and Old Dominion Com
pany He stated that this corporation
performs no intra-district service in
the District of Columbia and that the
question of rates maintained by 1t is
one for consideration by the interstate
commerce commission and not the util-
tiles commission of the District.
Mr.. Lambert said that he attended the
hearing "as matter Of courtesy to the
commission without in any way
submitting to Its Jurisdiction. Shortly
company he left the boardroom.
Held to Be Within Rights.
Corporation Counsel Conrad H. Syme
answered the jurisdictiona1 point
brought up and expressed the view that
the commission is within it's rights in
exercising jurisdiction over the opera
ton of the companys line within the
District. He was followed by Attorney
G. Thomas Dunlop. who spoke for the
Capital Traction Company.
Mr.. Dunlop's statement developed
the following: That the former trans
fer arrangement between the two COM
panies was covered under an agree
ment entered into in 1905 for a period
of ten years; that upon its expiration.
last November. the Washington and
Old Dominion Company refused to re-
new it, though the transfer service
continued until August without being
provided for under contract. when the
new tariffs Of the Virginia line went
into effect.
Mr.. Dunlop said that the agreement
did not affect intra-district service, but
Traction Company was powerless to
prevent it's cancellation, and that
through the arrangement had not been
remunerative one for it, this company
stood ready then and is ready now to
restore it for the benefit of the travel
ing public.
Asks to Be Excused.
Later in the hearing George E. Ham
ilton. president of the company. re-
viewed the points brought out by Mr..
Dunlop, and requested that the Capital
Traction Company be excused from fur
ther attendance at the hearings.
E. Hilton Jackson, attorney for a
number of patrons Of the Virginia line
who have filed a protest against the
new rate with the interstate commerce
commission, took the position that the
utilities commission has Jurisdiction
over the bridge traffic to it's southern
terminal, and asked the commission to
impose a fine upon the Washington and
Old Dominion Railway Company in
order that the question of jurisdiction
might be determined by the courts.
Others who spoke were A. Leftwich
Sinclair, representing the Chamber of
Commerce, who presented some court
decisions bearing on the question Of
the boundary lines: Herman E. Gasch
and number of patrons of the Wash