Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-01-12
MR.. PRESBREY's HOUSE.
What II IL That Has stopped the Ex-
tension of Connecticut Avenue.

The Commissionersyesterda passed an order
shat protests having been made on the part Of
OtisF Prssbrey and others, owners of property
in the line of the proposed extension Of Con
necticut avenue, against the condemnation pro-
oeedings in respect thereto instituted by the
Commissioners, the Commissioners have de.
cided to take no further action in the premises
for the present."
The action Of the Commissioners was the re-
suit Of a protest filed by Messrs O. F. Presbrey
and F. 8. Presbrey and Mrs. Adelaide Tuttle,
the owners Of the land through which the pro-
posed extension Of Connecticut avenue would
pass. DR.. Presbrey has nearly completed q
house that stands directly in the line of the pro-
posed extension. Connecticut avenue or a street
80 called has already been laid out at point
north Of Mr.. Presbreys property by private
enterprise. The proposed condemnation was
for a strip of road $50 feet in length TO connect
the Columbia road with Connecticut avenue
extended. This would provide an almost
straight road from the head Of Connecticut
avenue to the Woodley Lane bridge. The
owners OF the property to be taken. however,
protested when the usual condemnation notice
appeared In The EVENING STAR in November.
They raised number of objections and some
new ones. They objected to the opening Of
the road as not being the extension Of any
street or avenue in the city. They argued, too,
that such new road could not be laid out I'M
til 30 days after regulations had been published
by the Commissioners under the subdivision law.
They argued also that the law under which the
proposed condemnation was to be made, which
directed the jury to take into consideration
the benefits to be conferred by the proposed
Improvement on the property-owner whose
property was to be taken. was unconstitutional.
Their claim was that the Constitution required
that person be paid the actual value of the
land taken. The point. however, which seems
hud fhxav sv,<
missioners is that they had no right to begin
such proceedings, when they did not have suf-
hcient funds available TO pay the damages that
must be awarded. About Is, 900 feet of ground,
valued at $3.50 a foot, besides Mr.. Presbrey' 8
house, valued at IS. coo. would have TO be taken
Of the $4,000 appropriated for extending
streets, roads and avenues only about Il. 800
remain unexpended. When the Commissioners
hrst received the protest they referred the
matter to Attorney Riddle. who did not con-
slider the points well. taken. The Commits
sioners. however, thought it better to Weld the
point respecting thirty days notice, and they
suspended action for thirty days. Yesterday
at meeting of the board it was decided pru-
dent to suspend further proceedings on ac-
count of not having on hand an amount suff-
clent to pay the probable awards. Commits
sIoner Webb advised his colleagues to take
this course as a safe one. notwithstanding
the fact that the attorneys opinion would have
permitted them to have gone ahead and to
trust to Congress to provide means for paying
awards. The Commissioners said to-day that
the matter would have to rest until q new ap-
preparation was obtained. Maj. Raymond said
that the extension would have to be made some
time, as there was a natural demand for it,
though Mr.. Presbrey's house now stood in the
way. The affair has taken on a new phase, as
MIR. o. I. Presbrey, who was at
the District buildings yesterday after
noon. announced his intention of bringing
a suit for damages apainst the District His
grounds for suit, as he communicated them to
District officials, are, that cloud has been
thrown over his property by the Commissioners
In announcing the projection of the street by
reason of which he has been unable to sell il.
and its value has deprecated and that he has
lost the rent and benefit of the property for
some time. The Commissioners laughed about
the rather singular position of affairs to-day
They have stopped the proceedings, they say
because Mr.. Presbrey protested. and now they
are threatened with suit for damages by Mr.
Presbery because they do not go ahead.