Evening star., 1948-07-27
Joint BusEares
For Conmuter
Still in Effect
Capital Transit Files
New Suit After Denial
Of Temporary Writ

still in effect today, pending court
action on the Capital Transit Co.'S
efforts to have the Interstate Com
merce Commissions order for such
fares declared void.
Meanwhile, District Court had
before, it today a new suit by the
transit concern, which had filed its
original action last Wednesday.
The new suit repeats allegations
OF the first one and. in addition,
asserts the joint fares are confis-
catorN. 1t petitions for three
judge court to decide the issue and
asks that, after not less than three
days notice to the ICC and the
Attorney General, the court issue
an order staying temporarily the
Joint rate orders of the ICC.
The next step asked in the petit
ton is an injunction suspending
the ICC orders and. finally. the
company seeks final judgment hold
ing the orders void.
Temporary Writ Denied.
Justice Alexander Holtzoff in
District Court yesterday refused the
company's motion for a temporary
injunction against the ICES en-
forcing its joint fare order.
Background of the dispute, briefly,
is this: The Supreme Court on Nav
%, 1945, upheld the right of the
1CC to order joint fares between
the Capital Transit Co. and the
Virginia lines running to the Penta-
eon and certain other Arlington
County points.
On June %, 1915, the ICC ordered
a joint rate of 1873 cents. OF this
the Capital Transit,s share was put
at 5.S3 cents, with the Virginia lines
receiving 7l2 cents.
Capital Transit. at that time. ran
buses to the Pentagon, service it
no longer supplies.
ICC Ruling July 7.
The ICC last July 7 ordered the
joint rate increased to Is cents
Sl93 for a book of tickets for II
rides-effective next Monday. tt
ruled that the Virginia bus lines
should receive cents and Capital
Transit, 7 cents of this sum. The
Virginia lines are the Alexandria,
Bancroft &, Washington Transit Co.
and the Washington, Virginia g.
Maryland Coach Co.
Meanwhile, on June II, 1947, the
Districts Public Utilities Commits 4
sion ordered the transit company to
charge no less than 10 cents a ride
within the District or to sell weekly
passes at $1.50. Then, last week,
the PUG ordered Capital Transit to
cease honoring the joint fare tickets.
The company, thereupon, was
faced with the dilemma of refusing
to obey either the ICC or the PUG.
Failing to observe the ICC order
would make the company liable to-
fine of 500 for the first day and
$500 for each subsequent day. i
The liability for failure to observe
the PUG order is fine of 5000 Or
$500 a day. A commission official
himself was unable to state exactly
the sum.
Contest of Jurisdiction"
Justice Holtzoff yesterday referred
to this situation as "a horrible con-
test of jurisdiction between two reg
ulartory agencies
"All the court needs to weigh at
this time" he said, ARE the prob
abilities as to which of the two
bodies is likely to be held to have
jurisdiction.
He said the Supreme Court had
ruled the ICC has jurisdiction and
did not base its decision on any
policy of war necessity as had been
contended by counsel. Therefore, he
declined to issue an order against
the ICC but said he would issue one
against the PUG, if the transit COM
pany asked for it. This would have
protected the company from a PUG
penalty.
After conference with other at
torneys for the company, Edmund
L. Jones, general counsel for the
transit concern, said it would not
ask for an order against the PUG,
since that body, in view of the
courts opinion, would not take
sanctions against US
The company thereupon filed its
new suit