Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-01-22

| possible to bring before a court of review.
| They were to hear the evidence. but at the last
they were to apply their own Judgment. which.
| according to opinions cited by Mr.. Cole. was
not be outweighed by any amount of testi-
| mony.
1t was impossible from the very nature OF the
case that there could be anything like a Judi
ciai review Of the facts. Mr.. Cole. however,
after a brief summary of the evidence. said he
would submit that the awards made were not
very Ear from a fair medium of the testimony.
MT. Cole closed his argument at the usual hour
of recess.
Mr.. PERRYs ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Perry began his argument as soon as
the court met after recess. There had been.
ne sand, some things said by counsel to which a
reply by him might be out OF place before this
court lnasmuch. however. as these things
mad been said and tended TO throw suspicion
upon these proceedings, he believed he was
1ustined In answering them briefly and directly.
1t had been openly charged that the proceed
ings Tor the condemnation had been procured
by persons interested in lands so close 20 the
PARK mat they would be greatly benefited. 1t
lad been charged in one brief .ha. the partic-
ular parcel In question had been taken in with
great unwisdom and with disregard to the law
AS TO the FIRST statement, the property owners
themselves had put in testimony showing that
as early as 1867 the park was thought Of and
survey was made of very nearly the identical
ground covered by these proceedings.
imminent that it had operated as a cloud upon
the property. No one set of men had had any,
thing especially to do with it, but il had been
regarded for years as a probable and az emf
nentiy proper thing. Mr. Perry said the Sc
lection of :he land had been guided by no
caprice
he took map of the park ana showed how
the eastern boundary had been determined, with
view to the fact that il followed the line Of an
avenue extended from the Executive Mansion.
hnr l,,,n al, 4 i
the western line the established roads of the
District; so he held the map itself showed
that no one private interest was considered
In locating these boundaries.
SOME RECKLESS srATxMENTa
How reckless these various statements are
might be judged by the recklessness Of another
statement by the same person before the court
When MIR. Coleman was discussing the fact that
three OF the governments witnesses, Messrs.
Paul, Saunders and Truesdell, had been in
consultation he stated that the record
showed that the figures of these witnesses
differed only to the extent of a few hundred
dollars. Within an hour afterward Mr.. Cole
man himself read questions asked these wit
nesses showing that their total valuations diff
Tered by from sG5.000 to SCI. 900.
Tho counsers own recklessness of statements
as to matters Of fact within his knowledge
can be taken as q criterion of statements of
matters not within his knowledge, 'and which
say, added Mr.. Perry, 'are absolutely I'M
true" These matters. however. MIR. Perry
said, are not before the court.
MINIS of ihE PROPERTY o"NEhs
a. .rd,s eaIu tn"' tnes hao tWo-thiros OF
annrip- AZ 'aiue, moi Al NUMBERS
~ thn,.a .mo nnuii's vi .ne AWARDS, In num-
tacitly admitted that the values fixed by the
appraisers was just and fair, Only in one case
that of Jones. was there any suggestion of un-
FAIRNESS In his case as compared with others.
to the provisions of the appropriation act. He
referred first to the principle of Interpretation
that the words of O deed or of q law are to be
80 construed that the thing is to succeed rather
than perish, if it possibly can be done without
violating any rule of law.
When Congress said To tho commission .b.,
they would buy as near 1900 acres as they
could out of the money at their disnosal they
| prescribed a definite DUTY After n certain
point, however, there was an element of uncer-
tainty, as one could tell what the expenses of
the condemnation proceedings or the Judgment
of the appraisers would be. Suppose the finding
OF value should be 800 600 i'm excess of the bal.
ance of the appropriation available would tine
court say that that fact would DESTROY what had
already been done by the commission? Can it
be presumed that Congress meant tbat2 That
it intended tc absolutely prevent the carving
out of its own will as expressed in the ACT?
1t was argued here when the case was heard
first that the act was unconstitutional as n an
prOprlated q specific amount. which Woula in
fluence the appraisers in maxim their award
That this was not the effect has been shown by
the result.
The natural construction was that this l;m;-
tatiou of Il 200 OOC WAS to annlv 10 the tre,tv
with the owners bv the commission Tn cass
this failed the apnraisers were 10 he annointcS
and were to place upon the nronertv sucb vail
uation as their judgement anproved
uyv ,ocr, -. ~ ~
NJ D.. 49,. 80 'A.-Ifi shooLp BE IAkhN'
Mr. ferry during his argument said there
we're were grave reasons why the wEoie OF TINS hock
OreeA vailey should be included within this
PARK, reasons aside from any consideration Of
P h,a e. mere were reasons why this stream
should De preserved from becoming sewer to
the uetrlment OF the health OF the whole Dis
trlc1.
AS to the argument that to approve the re-
port would be a violation OF the statute forbid
dlng the anticipation Of an appropriation, MIR.
Ferry said the approval OF the report brought
upon the government no liability whatever.
ihls court can confirm this award as a whole,
the President can approve it as a whole and yet
no obligation Will rest upon the United States
until the commission undertakes to take possess
| sion OF the land. The government is not under
any obligation to pay anything until it has
manifested through the commission the pur-
pose of taking possession OF the land. Until
that point was reached the government could
at any time recede. There would be no viola
ton OF law until the Rock Creek Park coInmis-
sioner undertook to occupy, or take possession
OF more land than the balance of appropriation
n ~ n 10 VrrIl fnV