Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-11-19

ADHESION OF JUDGE JAMEs-THx THREE MUST
ACT As uSrT--rHE WIDE SCOPE OF THIS IN
TERPRErArIoS OF THE LAW.
Yesterday, Judge James, in the Equity Court,
heard the case Of Mary Ellen Bush ct al
against John H. Gheen and the District of Co.
| lumbia. The petitioner sought to enjoin the
defendant, Gheen, from erecting and maintain
ing livery stable in square 210, west Of the
Riggs Market on street between 14th and
18th streets northwest The petitioners, rep
resented by Messrs. Cook and Sutherland and
d. z. Cahill, owned the adjoining lot and
Gheen purchased two adjoining lots snd OBJ
tanned permit to erect stable thereon. The
original regulations pertaining to livery stables
prescribed that they should not be within cer-
tain distances OF dwelling houses nor the build
ing line of streets but in July last Commission
ers Douglass aud Robert made q number Of
amendments to the regulations, among them
one allowing the erection OF livery stables in
alleys.
MIR. A. g. Worthington appeared for Mr..
Ghsen and Mr.. s. I. Thomas for the District
and claimed that under this anne ndment the
inspector OF buildings had the power to issue
the permit and Mr.. Gheen the right to build
under it. Mr. Gheen having bought the lots
proceeded to build, the front being on An alley
and extending $50 feet toward P street. The
complainants, elderly people, having some
buildings on their lot, complained that the
stable would injure their property for dwelling
purposes and for this and other reasons sought
to enjoin the erection of the building.
On the hearing among the points made and
argued by the petitioners was that the Commits
sioners in making such regulations could only
act as unit or entirety and the alleged amend
ment, even though otherwise valid, having
been made by but two of them, vacancy ex-
listing at the time, was void
THE COMMISSIONERS MUST ACT As UNIT.
Judge James sustained the point and cited
authority that no power 10 expressly conferred
by statute upon any two of the Commissioners
of the District Of Columbia to act without the
third and it seems that the three Commission
ers should be present and acting whom any
business OF importance pertaining to their Of
ice is to be transacted, and called attention to
the opinion OF Attorney General Brewster Of
May TO- 1882, AZ follows:
ATTORNEY GENERAL BnEwprER's OPINION.
The statute concerning Commissioners of
the District Of Columbia authorizes the ap-
poinsmens by the President, with the advice
and consent of the Senate OF two persons, Who
with an officer Of the corps Of engineers of the
United States army of rank above that of cap
tain, shall be Commissioners Of the District
and shall exercise all the powers and authority
which were vested in the Commissioners under
IL
Secs. and 8, Supp. Rev. Stats, 340)
No power is expressly conferred upon any
two Of them to act without the third.
Especial Importance seems to be given to the
connection Of tho office Of engineers with the
Commissioners from civil life, indicating a
purpose in the legislative mind that the former
should be guide in many matters and check
perhaps in others upon the action Of the latter.
Hence it is provided that the engineer officer
detailed from time to time by the President for
10 At,Sx, hall nx ho
other duty.
Another provision u that zone Of said three
Commissioners shall be chosen president of the
Board of Commissioners at their first meeting,
and whenever vacancy shall occur
thereafter
From which Il is reasonably inferred that
the board is to be always full when any bust
ness Is to be done, for when a vacancy occurs
the organization OF the Commissioners as a
board Is dissolved. There must be new cleo
ton OF chairman to constitute them q legal
body. The whole tenor OF the statute seems
to require that the three Commissioners shall
be present and acting when any business of
Importance pertaining to their Office is to be
transacted.
My decided impression is that it would be un-
safe for the two remaining Commissi toner's, the
seat OF the engineer officer being vacant to act
as II the board were full.
THE CASE HELD IN ABEYANcR.
He, however, held the case in abeyance and
gave leave to Mr.. Gheen to amend his answer.
This the latter did by stating that he had not
now any intention Of erecting the building
until further proceeding by the Commissioners.
SCOPE OF THE DECISION.
This ruling settles the question az to whether
the Commissioners can act separately or other
than in joint session. According to it all i'm
portant action must be that Of the entire board
and the decision will affect all matters, among
them the liquor license regulations and the
granting Of licenses when but two of the board
acted, and licenses not having the approval Of
all three Of the board arc illegal.