Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1886-07-03
PROTESTING PROPERTY OWNERS.
DissatisfAeGiea with the Awards e ne
Library site Jury.


About nfty persons were present including s1-
Senator A 81. Cragin, Mr. and Nh. W. 81.
Hoeke, D. A Watterston, Mrs. Jane Lynch, O.
81. Reed, Mr.. and Mrs. =. Atwood, B. Maxenghi.
Mrs. Catherine s. Olds Mr.. 81. W. Olds, Mr.. and
Mrs. q. w. Gist, ]. B. Miller, James Hoban,
Dominick McMenamin, ]. c. Lotz WIN. Breun-
niger, Zachariah Tobriner. Leon TobSiner, j. r.
ling, Mrs. Rebecca Blaine, F. Steinle VIM. Roth
well, Mrs. Fannie L. Berry, Jno. w. Lehman
and Mr.. and Mrs. Edwin 8. Collsmer
Mr.. William H. Hoeke, who called the meet
Ing 70 PSre ., the ss
jury, and said the common sentiment seemed
to favor an appeal He thought II proper that
with the view to securing concert otaction. He
trusted that their efforts would result In re-
trial of their cause and q verdict moro in %.
cordance with common law and equity.
TAKING A VOTE
After some discussion, Mr.. Ordway suggssted
that 1t would be best to take . vote to see what
proportion OF the property owners wepe dis.
satisfied.
"An those who are satisfied" said the chair.
counted. No one arose, and there was gem
"Well," said the chairman, sthers appears
70 pc no one who is satisfied"
.c ss9;SseSueay those who were opposed 70 ths
all rose.
Ex-senator Cragin, referring to the condem-
nation, said this proceeding was entirely no, Il.
The squares condemned before for the extern.
sion Of the Capitol grounds were condemned BY
no s feSrt, upon the report Of appraiser APP
could appeal and have the case tried In court
by jury drawn from the box. some one, in
method, providing that damages should be
That under Old H law 1 ~
No ror,r
which the property-owners were supposed to be
benefited. No one ever heard before OF land
building in that way, condemned under pE Io4S
OF law Tor laying out public highways. The
court found itself in difficulties ia this case, 80
the Judge, he understood, swore the jury twice.
Under this nway law. if owners were not
satisned they could manifest their dissatistac-
tion: They could appear in court and say they
were not satisfied, and have u new Jury of
Twelve The marshal would select that Jury,
ana the same performance would be gone over
"that the awards would not be any worse tnan
they are now" From the award Of that jury,
he said, there was no appeal.
THE coNsrIrUrIoNALIrY OF THE PROCEED
There was. he thought, another mode to pro-
ceed, and that Was 10 show the unconstitution.
ailty Of the whole proceeding. The Constitu.
tion prov ides that no man shall be deprived of
NE, liberty and property without due process
Oh law. Due process OF law mdsInt the usual
process OF law, and the mode prescribed by the
library bill was not the usual process. They
might take this matter to the Supreme Couri
'Or course" he said, "the library would NOT be
built rig away, and there are some of US who
Woulon care much II it was not" They all
knew ne SAID, how this mig htmare, this cloud,
had hung over their property Tor years pre-.
venting Improvements. He did not now nc
Gase any one OF intending TO do them wrong.
Under this hi hWay law a jury was appointed
VINO were in doubt at first as to whether thew
should hear the property owners or not, but
finally concluded that it would not be Quits
safe not to hear them. He must say he Thought
the Jurors were impatient at times. It was
evident they mad aimed to bring the price
Wltnln the $6oO,OOO which the commission
were authorized TO pay in case they pArchased
tne property by private agreement. The i'm.
could be paid for it under condemnation bur
mat Was not true. There was no limit upon
that jury. The bill was framed especially TO
cover this contingency. No good lawyer would
construe the bill III any other way.
Mr. Cragin referred 10 the condemnation
proceedings when the ground for the east park
VI the Capitol was taken, showing that the
jury then exceeded the appropriation. He
compared the prices then paid with those now
although, as he cOntended, property had nd, |
Etnceu since then more than 90 per cent, He
criticised at considerable length the methods OF
the jury.
MIR. Kothwell stated that he had already filed |
s nds appear IN court There was some discus
morlallze Congress, do both.
IN FAVOR OF APPEALING
Mr.. Leon Tobriner suggested that unless an.
peais were made on or before July 9th the right |
ei appeal would be lost, and their protests
would amount to nothing. The question now
was ", whether they should appeal; A memorial |
AT present could do them no good Whatever A
vote was taken and nearly all present ex-
pressed Er ny votes their intention Of appealing.
might help them and could not i'm any wav in
terlere with their appeal.
MR.. oRDwAY'S VIEWS |
MIR. Ordway said that the proceeding had
been objected to at the outset by some OF the |
property owners. They had gone before that |
Jury under protest. He did not believe Con.
sress when 1t came to consider this matter
would De party to taking this property in this |
Way Without fair compensation. He thought |
they had two recourses, and his Judgment Vas
THAT they should take them both, He would
take the appeal and also at the earliest mo-
ment Drlhg the matter to the attention OF Con-
efess. he believed they should make arrange
ments 10 manifest their dissatisfaction. He |
would IKE TO see an argument made in the
court as 70 whether an appeal must not be tried |
ny d Jury drawn from the regular panel. He be- |
heVed that point should be argued. II it were |
oyerruled he would 60 before the jury that was |
selected. He would be content he said. to take
Whatever verdict q jury drawn in the regular |
way would give him. He did not believe thew
we were e. called upon to part with their properly
the usage OF law. They ought Tonight in some |
manner send TO Congress and lei them know |
=, Messrs. Crasin. Rothwell, Olds, Gist and |
lutions. VIZ -S'0
While the committee was absent Mr.. Ordway
spoke at some length, explaining the condition |
OF the property. Referring to the jury he said |
ne had no accusations to make. 1t was true
that all but one OF the Jurors were selected |
from the western part OF the city. The Jury
ne claimed, must have been under misappre.
nension respecting the supposed limit OF |
MR.. MMENAMIN CHANGES HIS OPINION.
MIR. McMenamin said that when he appeared
before the jury he expressed confidence in their
Judgment About all he could say now was
that his own judgment was deficient. He was
him that the jury had started out 10 divide
S5oO,OOO as justly as they could among The
property owners, leaving q little TO pay the ex-
penses Of the jury. de did not believe that
any pool ever existed among the property own
ers as had been suggested. Some years ago a
number OF residents of Capitol Hill who now.
ever, did not own q dollars worth of pronarty
In THOSE squares, went around among the own.
ers to ind out what they would sell Tor He
put his property down at $4,000 and signed
ever, consented to take 10000, and the zen.
t.eInen who came to him were satisfied. Now
TINS Jury awarded him less than 81 200, and
he was not satisfied.
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED.
The committee reported resolutions setting
forth that as ''the prices named by the Jury
selected by the marshal Of the District OF
Columbia TO appraise the value Of SQUARES 72a
~ ana 731 are wholly Inadequate 70 00mpen, |
safe the owners tor their property. that We |
earnestly protest against the verdict OF said
ator Cyayn offered = form OF MEMORIAL 10 Con.
sress which was adopted. A COMMITTEES com. |
posed OF Aessrs. Hoeke, Olds. Cra9in.
Watterston, Ordway, Burnett aud McNens-