Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-10-02

nay WinAews and Oshsr Projections.
10 the Editor Of The EvKsrxa Star:
Tne points involved In the construction Of the
proposed building on the point OF land lying at
the Intersection Of Massachusetts, avenue and n
street. on the west side OF Thomas Circle, are at
tracing good deal OF attention. and are certain
10 attract great deal more before all the questions
involved In this and similar cases are definitely
settled. IL Is well therefore, TO look at the sub
Jet from all points OF view. and see what IL
special privileges, and what the future results Of
SUCH Claims and concessions or gifts are likely
Naturally, property holders or residents In any
nelghoorEood would choose wel-kept park or
lawn In front OF or opposite 20 their own premises
slightly or unsightIy, which Would have the eject
70 cut on pleasant view In any direction. On the
other hand, all property owners have not only the
tent OF the ground they actually own. Naturally,
also, they will occupy for private use as much OF
reservation or ground dedicated 10 street or otner
pubic purposes adjacent 10 their own land as the
the case. and & likely 70 Be the case IN
eOnsti;uted as Gns These a9e noweVs1 purely
and wholly matters OF feeling and taste, and must
De left TO the Judgment OF the several parties In
Interest, due regard being always had, OF course.
TO the legal rights OF others ana decent sense Oh
propriety. Each person Will therefore decide as 70
view occupied or the interests afiected. They are
points which cannot be decided by law, and their
discussion orally or In the columns OF the press Is
not likely TO be useful, except 50 far as correct
public sentiment may be created thereby.
The real questions at issue In the case, and
which should De kept constantly before the puolic
mind, not only In considering II, but as 10 the
future are, whether the District officials have or
have not transcribed their powers In the prem
iSes,-whether or not they have been guilty OF
Neutrality-suspicious. or not they have violated
their own building NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. or not,
and II 50 TO what extent, they have donated or
surrendered public property TO private uses7 II
they have done these things, OF any Of them, In
this case the blam- for the whole OF the expense,
trouble and bad ceiling growing out OF IL should 10
the property owner interested, VINO naturally
wishes TO enjoy all legal rights, aud to take adj
vantage as wen OF al the privileges allowed BY
the authorities.
What are the facts upon these points? Probably
the full history OF the case from beginning TO end
Will never be disclosed; but enough can De seen
on the surface TO warrant the belief that but Tor
the action OF the District ofcals no trouble would
ever have arisen In this particular instance. The
building reguiations-a5 usually, but not invaria-
Oily, and infiexiDly, enforced,-prov1de that no bay
window or other projection from building shall
exceed In any case IA feet In length. Has that
proper provision been enforced In this case?
II not, why not? What the Official records
but an examination OF the foundation walls dis.
closes the fact that they present an unbroken
front line OF nve foot projections for more than
tlCice the length fired by the building regulations.
In other words, the officials chosen and pretending
TO for the interests OF The people OF the Dis
tIlct nave virtually donated a STRIP OF puOuc
ground for private use f1ve feet wide along the
whole front both fronts OF the triangular
lot lying east OF the existing building. Here, 1t
would seem, Is where the responsibility for the
whole OF the present difficulty must rest But for the
surrender OF these strips OF public ground oOnsid-
erab q eIceediHtg in ertentHe ground belonging to
the otcner, The offending house would never have
been contemplated, Tor the triangular point OF
private lands too small TO be WORT building upon
unless thus enlarged.
IL Is urged In defence OF the authorities that there
are precedents for this action on their part,-ta at
like special privileges were extended in the case Of
The Portland and later In that OF the new building
OF the National Safe Deposit Company, and III some
Others. The owner IN the case under notice con-
tends that what has been conceded Ii others SINH
larry situated should not be withheld now. This
view Is natural enough from an interested point,
and Is not without Iorce but II affords no justin
cation for the commission or another wrongful act
on the part OF public authorities. Two wrongs nor
a dozen wrongs do not make a right Because an
injustice 10 the public has been done in one In
stance Is no reason Tor perpetuatlng and multiply
ing injustice. Tue question whether violations OF
law and regulations already permitted should not
be corrected by the removal OF improper struc-
lures may well be considered: that OF permitting
other and more fragrant outrages upon pubic
nights Is not entitled 10 moments respectful
thought CITIZEN.