Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

You state that this ruling is desired to cover confiscated or stolen live stock or stock that is shipped by, or in the interest of, those involved in the continuance of revolutionary conditions in the Republic of Mexico. I know of no present authority of law (other than the quarantine act) under which the importation of this live stock could be forbidden. The real owners could, of course, assert their rights to it in the courts which acquired jurisdiction over the property.

Respectfully,

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

T. W. GREGORY.

GOVERNMENT-OWNED SITE AT AQUEDUCT BRIDGE.

The Government-owned site at the south end of the Aqueduct Bridge, comprising the tract above high-water mark on the Virginia bank of the Potomac River purchased under the act of June 21, 1886 (24 Stat. 84), is under the administrative control and jurisdiction of the Secretary of War.

The Secretary of War has the power to issue a revocable license to the Washington, Arlington & Falls Church Railroad Co., permitting it to occupy with its railroad tracks and appurtenances such portion of said site and in such manner as he may deem advisable for the time being.

The Secretary of War also has the power to issue a revocable license permitting the relocation of the track of the Great Falls & Old Dominion Railroad Co. upon the site in question.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
November 19, 1915.

SIR: With a view to determining whether revocable licenses may be issued for the relocation of the railway tracks of the Great Falls & Old Dominion Railroad Co. and of the Washington, Arlington & Falls Church Railroad Co. on the Government-owned site at the south end of the Aqueduct Bridge, in accordance with a plan recommended by a Board of Engineers, you have asked my opinion upon the following questions concerning your authority in the premises:

"1. Is the Government-owned site at the south end of the Aqueduct Bridge under the administrative control and jurisdiction of the Secretary of War?

"And if this question be answered in the affirmative, then the following:

"2. May the Secretary of War, by revocable license or in other like manner, authorize, or do anything tantamount to authorizing, the Washington, Arlington and Falls Church Railroad Company to occupy indefinitely said site with its railroad and its appurtenant properties; or should said company be remitted for its right of occupancy to Congress?

"3. Has the Secretary of War the authority to change. or relocate, by way of selecting another place for its tracks for the purpose of improving transportation facilities at the site in question, the right of way now occupied by the Great Falls and Old Dominion Railroad Company?"

As the answer to your first question may render consideration of the others unnecessary, it is proposed to treat. it as an independent subject. The facts out of which it arises are not fully stated in your letter. Some of them are to be found, passim, in the opinion of the Judge Advocate General, which accompanies it. In the course of this opinion reference will be made to certain other facts of which, perhaps, a court would take judicial notice. It is to be noted, especially, that the tract described in your letter simply as the Government-owned site is assumed to be the tract of upland, comprising 5.2418 acres, above high-water mark on the Virginia, or southern, bank of the Potomac River, purchased under the act of June 21, 1886, and not to include any land formed by reclamation out of the former bed of the river below high-water mark.

The site in question was formerly the property of the Alexandria Canal Co. and was used in connection with the canal which crossed the Potomac upon the stone piers and abutments now supporting the Aqueduct Bridge. In conformity with the act of Congress of July 27, 1868, chapter 261 (15 Stat. 231), that company's successor, the Alexandria Canal, Railroad & Bridge Co., erected over the former aqueduct a wooden bridge, which, from high

water mark on the Virginia shore, was continued by an elevated structure some 600 feet in length to the level ground in Virginia.

In a suit brought in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to enjoin a sale for nonpayment of taxes assessed on the bridge structure as a whole, it was held by the court in general term that so much of the bridge as extended from Georgetown to the high-water mark on the Virginia shore was in the District of Columbia, but that so much as extended from the high-water mark to the level ground in Virginia was not within the District, and the assessment, being upon the whole, was accordingly void. (Alexandria Canal, Railroad & Bridge Co. v. District of Columbia, 1 Mack. (D. C.) 217.)

The act of June 21, 1886 (24 Stat. c. 463, p. 84-85), authorized the Secretary of War to acquire by purchase

66 * * * a title in fee-simple, free from all liens or claims of lessees or others, to the bridge known as the Aqueduct Bridge, including the piers thereof, across the Potomac River, and the approaches thereto, and all the rights and franchises connected with said bridge." and, when acquired, to repair or reconstruct the same. The act further provided that—

66* * * one-half of the expense of such purchase and reconstruction or repair of said bridge shall be charged to and paid by the District of Columbia, and the balance, one-half of the sum so expended, shall be paid out of the Treasury of the United States."

The Secretary of War accordingly purchased the whole property, including the piers, approaches and franchises, taking on behalf of the United States a conveyance in which was expressely named "also the whole of the land at the south end of the said bridge containing 5 acres, more or less." Cession of jurisdiction had meanwhile been made by Virginia by an act (Mar. 6, 1886, Session Laws 1885-86, p. 483), which purported to retain in the State "concurrent jurisdiction."

In pursuance of the act, the Secretary of War removed the former wooden structure and erected a new iron bridge upon the existing stone piers and abutments. It was

opened as a free bridge on March 3, 1888, control, however, remaining with the Secretary of War.

The act of July 18, 1888 (25 Stat. c. 676, p. 314), making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia, contained the following provision (p. 319):

"Care of bridges: For ordinary care of bridges, including keepers, oil, lamps, and matches, two thousand five hundred dollars; for construction and repairs of bridges, including retaining wall on M Street at the approach to the new free bridge across the Potomac, which bridge is hereby placed under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, fourteen thousand five hundred dollars; in all, seventeen thousand dollars."

From that time the Commissioners have had the control, care, and maintenance, as well as the policing, of the bridge structure, but they do not seem to have exercised any powers whatever in respect of the tract of land above high-water mark on the Virginia shore, in which are located the southern approaches to the bridge.

On the contrary, it appears from the opinion of the Judge Advocate General that, beginning about 1895, the Secretary of War issued a series of revocable licenses under which the occupancy of designated portions of the site by the tracks of the Washington, Arlington & Falls Church Railroad Co. began and still continues.

By the act of January 29, 1903 (32 Stat. 781), provi sion was made for the first time for the use of the bridge itself by electric street-railway tracks. Upon compliance by the Great Falls & Old Dominion Railroad Co. with certain conditions therein stated, the Commissioners were authorized and directed to alter the superstructure at the company's cost in such manner that a single electric streetrailway track might be placed thereon. Default on the part of the company named operated to forfeit the rights, privileges, and franchises conferred by the act and to vest them, upon like conditions, in the Washington, Arlington & Falls Church Railroad Co. Upon completion of the alterations in the bridge, or earlier if the Commissioners should direct, the first-named company was authorized "under such regulations and upon such plans as may be

approved by said Commissioners, to lay upon said bridge and across" certain specified streets in the city the single electric railway and to connect therewith "its tracks to be constructed over its right of way in Alexandria County, Virginia." Provision was also made for the use of the tracks "for the purpose of crossing said bridge and securing connection into the city of Washington" by one or more other railway companies upon satisfying the Commissioners that it had refunded a proportional part of the cost of the work as might be agreed upon between the companies as equitable compensation for the privilege. Upon failure to agree, the Supreme Court of the District was empowered to determine the amount. The company using the track was required to "keep the bridge floor and the pavement between the rails" and for a given distance outside in repair to the satisfaction of the Commissioners who, upon failure so to do, were authorized to make the repairs and collect the cost, and upon default in payment "to prevent the operation of said cars by the exercise of their police authority."

Section 8 authorizes the Commissioners to permit the cars" across said bridge and in M and Thirty-sixth Streets to be operated by the underground electric system or by overhead trolley, as they may deem desirable." Then appears the following:

"SEC. 9. That the operation of the cars upon the track herein authorized shall be under the direction and control of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, who are hereby authorized to make such regulations in regard to speed, character, and weight of cars, time of operation, and fare to be charged as they may deem necessary or desirable; and any company violating any regulations of said Commissioners made under the authority of this section shall be subject to a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars for each and every offense, to be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction at the suit of said Commissioners, and in default of the payment of such fine the Commissioners are hereby authorized to exercise their police authority to prevent the operation of the cars of the company so defaulting."

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »