Evening star., 1886-11-06
Questioning the knowledge Of zone
who knOWs.''

To the Editor of The EVENING STAR:
"One Who Knows started out with the
avowed purpose of correcting IAN absurd error
aud rebuking some correspondent of q New
York paper for being $50 ignorant of the Law
in the premises which plainly indicates
that this item of S4O5 900 is 10 be expended in
street improvements within the city limits =
Relying ON his superior knowledge, in his own
estimation, i respectfully requested him TO
state what law and which city limits he meant
In his reply in The STAR of the I'd inst, prom
fsins TO do his best to enIighten me, he frankly
admits that his statement, made "amid the
pressure Of urgent business" Was carelessly ex-
pressed and erroneous, and that If he had given
the mai ter closer attention he would have said
"that the law required this item of S4O5, 900 to
be expended In street improvements Within the
city limits"
1t seems unfortunate that one in his position
should so severely rebuke another for ignorance
OF Law TO which he had not himself given close
attention; out am very willing to give him
the full benefit OF his carefully revised and
amended statement. Now tor the law. He
says: Tine law in The premises is the provision
in the act OF June IL 1873, which requires the
commissioners to submit estimates showing
what they propose TO do with the District reve-
nues during the fiscal year next ensuing" /"
This Is another mistake much worse than the
1rst. The annals OF no nation in Cbrsiendom
can show Law like that; and such error in
quoting law would seem to be inexcusable
even in a subordinate" The law to which he
refers reads follows: "Tne said Commls
sioners shall submit to the Secretary of the
1879, and annually thereafter, TOR his examina-
tion and approval, statement showing in de-
tall the work proposed to be undertaken by
them during the nseal year next ensuing and
the estimated est thereof"
When he comes TO the item in the Commits
sioners estimates o; the current year, which
has given rise To this discussion, he quotes as
accurately as though he We're the author OF it,
thus: -For Improvement OF streets and avenues
S4OoOOO. But when he says that this item
has always been expended within W hat he calls
The city limits, without any other designation
AMI that IL has never been thoug Ia necessary
by any board of Commissioners to add the
words in Washington and Georgetown'" he
makes another grave mistake. Every year
from 1879 until this very year "A specific refer
ence has been made To the streets to which lis
expenditure was To be limited, and always
naming the streets OF Washington and the
streets OF Georgetown, respectively.
Without any other designation than thai
given In the Commissioners estimates of the
present year, the whole sum- when appropriated
could be expended anywhere within our muni
ctpal limits, coextensiye with the entire Dis
tx1o3
reply to my other inquiry as to which
city limits he means, he says: "The city limits
Including Oeorgetown, which is regarded a,
Is q sufficient and conclusive refutaIIon-Re
vised statutes relating to District OF Columbia
section "a: THAT portion OF the District in
Guided within the limits OF the city OF Wash
1ngton as the same existed on the 21st day o
February, 1871, shall continue TO be known a,
the city OF W aSnington, and that portion OF th,
District included within The limits OF the city
Of Georgetown as the same existed at that d an,
shall continue 70 be known as the city o
Georgetown.
Congress has always observed and acted upor
tEis distinction. L.