Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-07-28
PERMITS FOR FRUIT STANDS.
Commissioner Douglass Reasons Why Ri
Cannot Agree With His Colleagues.

Commissioner Douglass Reasons Why BE
Cannot Agree With His Colleagues.
Some time ago the Commissioners received
an application from S. G. Casassa for a permit
to erect fruit stand over the area and inside
the railing OF the Howard House at 9th street
and Pennsylvania avenue.
Lieut. Kelly. to whom the matter was re-
ferred, reported that tho stand would be out
side Of the building line, and would not OF
itself be an obstruction. The only question
was whether an individual who rented or owned
any house had right to rent out any portion
of the outside of the building line for the pur-
pose of conducting another and separate busi-
ness
Mr.. s. T. Thomas. assistant attorney for the
District, rendered decision that the projec-
ton asked for was not ''such an occupation of
the public highway as the law prohibits unless
sanctioned by the Secretary of War and ap-
proved by the Commissioners" Basing their
action upon this decision of the attorney g
office the majority Of the board, Messrs. Ross
and Robert, today granted the permit, Mr..
Douglass dissenting.
MR.. DOUGLASS DISSENTING VIEWS.
In his report upon the matter Mr.. Douglass
said:
shall have to dissent from this grant for
the following reasons:
l. Section 222 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States, in regard to the streets Of the
City Of Washington, provides that
"No open space. public reservation or other
public ground in the city of Washington, nor
any portion of the public streets or avenues il
said city, shall be occupied by any private per-
son, or for any private purpose whatever"
The case of the District agt. Munroe turned
from the opinion of Judge Cox seems to settle
the question:
1t is obvious that there is broad distinction
between transgressions of that act, of the kind
which / have described. and the mere tenn
porary use Of the sidewalk by business men in
the display OF their goods, wares and mer-
ehandise in front Of their stores.
There is obviously broad line Of distinc-
ton between the two classes Of cases. The
goods are put upon the street temporarily, and
intended for removal; that is Q licensed OBJ
struction under the act Of 1856. But to erect
any kind Of a structure, booth, addition to q
house, &C., and to occupy part Of the street
the whole time and to be under the exclusive
control and in the use in that way Of the owner
Of the adjoining building or . stranger holding
under his license. anything of that kind deem
to be an obstruction of the street within the
prohibition OF the act Of Congress and Of the
ordinance of Washington of 1862.
2. Sixth street between Pennsylvania avenue
and B street is the thoroughfare between the
city and the Pennsyivania railroad depot and
is frequently crowded with foot passengers by
day and night. The pavement there is un-
usually narrow and no possible obstruction
should be allowed or encouraged along that
walk.
8. understand that the applicant, Casassa,
has q regular place of business on F street, so
that he will not be shut off from occupation.
And also understand that he is to pay a rental
for the use of the pavement to the owner or
occupant Of the Howard House. II we are to
violate the statute and the decision Of the
court We might at least have the rental for the
use Of the public.
Altogether / am opposed, for the above rea-
sons, to the grant.
This matter 10 one Of considerable importance,
as it applies to many Of the fruit stands along
the avenue, AS well as to many Of the produce
houses along Louisiana avenue, who use the
sidewalks for temporary stands and for pur-
poses Of storage during the day.