Evening star., 1936-12-17
.C|T|zEN-LABORS SUIT
FILED IN COURT TO
CURB IMAM CARS
Plaintiffs Cite Revenues to
Be Realized on Dropping
ST Weekly Pass.
PLEA SEEKS TO VACATE
ORDER OF COMMISSION
Consent to New Carriers Called
Unjust and Unreasonable"
With Service Crippled.

Pending in District Court today
was an appeal by the Federation of
Citizens Associations and the Wash
ington Central Labor Union from
the refusal by the Public Utilities
Commission to reconsider its authori-
zation to the Capital Transit Co. to
operate 40 additional one-man street
cars.
The two plaintiffs, who told the
court they represent ITO civic and
labor groups, asked that the order
be vacated and the P. U. c. directed
to conduct a rehearing in the mat
ter, taking into account the increased
revenues which are expected to re-
suit from discontinuance of the ST
weekly street car pass.
1t was because of the alleged ne
ceSsity for curtailment of expenses
that the commission permitted the
use of more one-man cars, the suit
stated.
Inferior Service Feared.
The commissions order was at
tackled as unjust and unreasonable"
and as imposing a distinctly in
ferior class of operation of street cars
in the District"
1t is "capricious and inconsistent"
said the complainants, because it
finds that the traction company may
use an obsolete type" of car for re-
placements, contradicting prior stand
that additional one-man cars could
not be safely operated here unless
the cars were of the modern ''Presi-
dents Conference type"
With the commissions permission,
20 Of the Presidents Conference
type" cars we're purchased in 1885,
the suit asserted, and last Spring
the Capital Transit Co. applied for
permission to purchase 80 additional
one-man cars which had been retired
from use in Providence, r. l. These
we're to be renovated and 10 used
to replace old one-man cars already
in use, and the remaining 20 used al
additional conveyances.
Pursuant to this application, the
P. U. C. allowed the company to
purchase one of the Providence cars
and try it out. Then, on April IL.
1t approved the purchase of the 20
other cars. according to the suit.
This was done, it was charged. with.
out public notice or hearing and over
civic protest and in defiance" Of
the commissions own existing orders.
Hearing Began July %.
Subsequently, on May %. the COM
mission formally began its one-man
street car investigation. and held
hearing beginning July %. Yet.
when the hearing started, the suit
vious action, already had approved
the rebuilt Providence type Of cars.
october 10 the P. U. C. refused
to rehear the matter and the appeal
to the District Court was from the
order entered in that ruling.
Since that time, the court was
told, the Capital Transit Co. gave
notice that it would discontinue its
81 weekly pass but continue the SIPS
pass. This, it was said, will decrease
the number of passengers and con-
sequently the operating expenses. but
will result in a considerable increase
in revenue. 1t is this new situation
that the plaintiffs desire to present
at another hearing.
The suit charged that the order
was not based on complete finding
of fact, was arbitrary and ignored
the weight of evidence. 1t also was
alleged that it was predicated upon
an erroneous finding concerning the
financial condition of the Capital
Transit Co.