Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-01-26
THE ROCK CREEK PARK CASE.
The Arguments Ended Today-No Decision
Expected Before Next "Wednesday.

The Arguments Ended Today-No Decision
Expected Before Next Wednesday.
The argument in the Rock Creek Park case
before the Court in General Term came to An
end this morning. 1t is not expected that de-
cision will be announced by the court before
next Monday, the mex! "opinion" day. Mr..
Wilson spoke for about half an hour this morn
ing and finished his address.
Mr.. wilson upon resuming his argument this
morning briefly recounted some Of the points
made in his address yesterday. He said his
clients, who owned $50 acres of this park land,
simply wanted feir treatment. He argued
again that the court had no power acting judi
claiiy, as he claimed it must act, to confirm O
report exceeding the amount beyond which the
government said it would not 60. He went
iur ther and insisted that if the court held that
IT had the power the report should not be con-
nrmed, as fair examination would show that
the awards were not in accordance with the
evidence. IT was said in the argument that
two-thlrds Of the owners had tacitly Assem- ted
TO the report Why they assented he could not
say. Owners OF small tracts might feel that the
amount involved in their cases might not be suf-
hclent to compensate them for struggle against
the government. lie compared the awards
made to some Of those who had accepted and
argued that there was great disparity. He
referred to the award of over 1894 for quar-
originally been part of the Shoemaker tract
Ibis, he claimed, was at the rate OF s., 636 an
acre.
Mr.. Perry said that this award included i'm
provements. 1t was quarter OF an acre
highly cultivated, with fruit trees and vines
and house and stable.
MIR. Wilson said that what was allowed for
improvements was not a matter Of inference.
1t was shown By the testimony, and twas shown
that substantially what he had stated had been
fIv ttn H. 4.
tracts, the awards for which he said offered q
similar disparity.
IN WHOLE OR IN PART.
Mr.. Wilson argued that the report must be
confirmed or rejected a whole, and could not
be confirmed or rejected in part. The statute
under which these proceedings worc taken he
sald was unique, and the statute itself, he said,
showed that the whole tract was to be con-
oemned. When report was made which it
was found could in any respect not be main
tanned, the whole proceeding must fail. The
statute directed the court to deal with the
whole tract. All of the tracts were involved in
one common proceeding. In replying to
question from tie bench as to the power of the
court to refer the report or any part OF it back
Mr.. Wilson said that that was grave ques-
ton and one which he did not care to autici-
pate, but he did not believe this court could
deal with the matter piecemeal.
THE ROAD QUESTION.
MIR. Wilson closed his argument about 1876
o'clock, and Mr.. Robinson took the floor for
brief argument in reply to what had been said
regarding the points he raised concerning the
alternative awards made to his client, Mrs
Carpenter, for her rights in portion Of the
land embraced in the Military road.
Mr.. Perry said that there was no question
that during the war the United States took
possession OF the road without paving for it,
and If that were the only point he conceived
that there was no time better than the present
for paying for it. But Mrs. Carpenter had sold
from her property parcels fronting upon the
road, getting increased COMPENSATION on that
account and recognizing the road as an estab-
ilshed fact He, however, believed this WAS a
question OF title that should not be considered
now.
Mr.. Robinson said that Mrs. Carpenter had
never granted any easement on the road The
deeds given referred to the road only in de-
scriblnS the metes and bounds and in no way
granted any right of way over that ROAD.
MR. JONES AFFIDAVIT.
Mr.. Lambert called attention to the fact that
the motion for the admission of Mr. Jones' affi-
davit was left in suspense. Mr.. Jones, he said,
had made counter affidavit replying to that of
Mr.. Seuiferle and had been and was ready to
go on the stand. MIR. Lambert said that the
court had made an order limiting the time for
filing exceptions to form the basis of q writ Of
error to the LIST of February, and asked whether
any further indulgence would be granted.
Inc court said that whatever time counsel
needed would be granted
The arguments then closed and the court
took the case under consideration.