Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-10-06
THE BAY.wINDOw QUESTION.
Attorney Riddle Holds that the Permit
70 Mrs. Cole Ssas Legally Issued.

Attorney Riddle Holds that the Permit
20 Mrs. Cole Was Legally Issued.
As stated in yesterdays STAR, Attorney Riddle
mas submitted TO the Commissioners an opinion
relative TO the points raised In objection TO the
permit Issued to Mrs Anna C. Cole, allowing bay
window projections on the point OF land formed by
the Intersection OF Massachusetts, avenue and
street, at Thomas Circle. Following Is the full
text OF Attorney Riddles opinion:
OFFICE OF TIE ATTORNEY YoR TIE Dra COL,
WASHINGTON, d. c., Oct g 1888.
GENTLEMEN: Herewith ind the papers In the
matter OF Mra Coles permit for structure at the
intersection OF Massachusetts, avenue and NJ street
northwest Mr.. Armes and others make many OBJ
ections to the permit issued to the owner and the
commissioners call my attention 70 an aspect OF
the case not 80 clearly distinguished by the OBJ
Jectors themselves.
The application and permit are not before me.
The case assumes that Mrs Cole Is the owner Of
building loi, the Larger part covered by build
Ing. As shown by the plat sent me, the struc-
ture proposed Is extension In fact OF that or an
addition 70 It. upon the vacant part for the cree
The objection 70 this Is not so clear. In my brief
study OF your building regulations, last edition.
description or limitation OF one. Nor does the
law define the term.
As now advised this part of this lot seems to be
land fairly within the scope or the building regu-
lations do not hold with the directors that a
permit 10 build Is matter OF grace to be given or
withheld at discretion. think the case OF Stras.
burger was entertained and decided on the ground
that In proper case made an owner may by man
damus enforce permit as pure legal right The
ground OF the directors Is that the Commissioners
cannot permit-cannot authorize the use or occu-
pancy OF Land OF the United states part OF street.
Congress has conferred no such power upon them;
therefore the permit Is not warranted. think
this Is question OF such moment that II 1t has
any good foundation these parties should take It
promptly into the courts may but ofrer my best
makes every projection attached TO build ille-
Gal, and would compel the reduction OF every front
smoS os vse ne 10
all the front steps
The objection Is not to bay-windows, corner
that Is declared illegal In the absence OF legisa,
ton or municipal declaration, permitting such
proections Mr. Dillon says, this right OF use, be-
usage. G. Dillon, Sec 734 and notes) The original
deed or conveyance under the Maryland statute
tons
The first OF President washington's code met
the views or the gentlemen. 1t forbid vaults un-
DER the streets and all use OF the surface that OF
the foOtwayS by owners and builders. In 1704
vaults, areas, door-stepS, and bitches were au-
thorzed. The city charter OF 1870 empowered
sns council 70 enact building regulations 70 be
March, 1872, approved by Monroe, made ample
provision for vaults, porches, coIonades, door
the ordinance of is45 repeats and amplifes these
Privileges
The organic act Of the late District Government
conferred ample power on the Board OF Public
Works 10 frame building regulations, subject to
the revision OF the legislature. (Section 70 Re-
vlsed Statutes). The power was exercised, pro-
wiling Tor the latter style OF projections silently
acquiesced in by the legislature Alive to the grow
Ing Importance or this matter, although the CON-
mlssloners took the power conferred on the board.
as above, Congress by the act OF June IA, 1878,
authorized the Commissioners Ito make aud en-
force such building regulations for the said Dis
trict, as they may deem advsaoe, " declaring they
same force afYpcf ar
Dy Congress.
There never was q broader grant for q specific
ent building law. Congress Is fully advised OF ii,
AID acquesces In II, SO far as appears. Substanti
ally these same regulations have been twice be-
fore our supreme Court In General Term and
commended and approved. (Strasburger's case,
cited as above, and the safe Deposit Co. case)
certainly under Mr.. billions rule we have ample
legislative provision, many municipal declara-
lions, anu nearly one hundred years OF public
usage, each and all authorizing these projections
Irom buildings upon and over the lines or the
streets Inc appropriation or the public property
IS not the act OF the Commissioners but OF the law
they execute. IL Is these which gives the directors
steps 10 their front doors and other convenlences
they may enjoy.
believe this disposes OF the legal propositions OF
the ooJectors. 1 think the Commissioners have
the power 10 issue permits, as In this case so far
am somewhat familiar with the law which pro-
tects mans enjoyment or sunlight and air. am
not 50 clear as 10 the rules that protect man In
the enjoy nent OF outlOoks vtstaS and views as an
independent property such as these directors fear
the loss Of You cannot confiscate private prop-
erty for their preservation.
Herewith, also, i return the paper Of one or more
OF these gentlemen, dated to-day asking that said
permit De calceied, for the reason that Mrs. Cole
Is departing from It's terms. This, so far as the
parties 10 II are concerned, seems to admit tue
legality OF that paper. i had made my indorse-
ment upon II before the papers above considered
reacneu me- A. g. RIDDLE,
Attorney District columbia.
Honorable Commissioner, ID district Columbia