Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-01-25

the exceptions to the award Of the Rock Greek
Park case would be ended today. All that re-
manned Of the argument. it was supposed, was
the closing on the par. of the property owners,
which had been intrusted by his asso-
ciates to Mr.. Jere NJ Wilson, represent
ing the Shoemaker and other interests
in the park. Mr.. Cole, however. arose when
the court was ready to go on and said that he
had omitted to state clearly in his argument
the position Of the government in respect OF
the claims made by Mr. Robinson in his argu-
ment concerning Mrs. Robinson's rights in the
Military road.
He did not intend TO make argument. as the
government claimed that that question was not
to be passed upon by the court now, but would
come up when the money Was to be paid into
court These questions Of title he said, would
all arise after the report had been approved.
The questions would ali come into court
afterward as in the post Office case, in which
case now there was over S200,0 in court
awaiting the settlement of disputes as to title.
In the present instance the government would
take the ground that Mrs. Carpenter was
equitably estopped from claiming the larger
award.
Mr.. WILSON BEGINS HIS ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Wilson then took the floor for the close.
Mr.. Wilson said in reference to the remarks Of
the District attorney respecting roads that there
HOuiu De no Sulue as 10 whether tue larger OF
smaller amounts awarded should be deposited
in court.
Mr.. Perry said in such disputed cases the
larger amount would be deposited.
Mr.. Wilson then reviewed the whole case. II
was not case, he said. where property owners
were seeking to sell their property.
The owner was compelled to acquiesce no
matter how strong his aversion might be to
disposing of it. 1t was q constitutional duty
devoiving upon the government to see to it
that the owner had o fair and just COM
pensation.
This power to take could only be exercised
by legislative authority. Any power or grant
made in such case is to be strictly construed
He had noticed in the newspaper reports of the
argument that that proposition had been in a
sense disputed; that it had been contendedth
Congress had intended to take this land. and
the act must be so construed as not to thwart
the intention of Congress. Mr.. Wilson how
ever, cOntended that on the contrary the act
must be most rigidly and literally construed.
There was no intendment against the owner;
there was every intendment against the power
Of taking mans property against his consent
He read an authority to sustain his position
that the utmost precaution should prevail in
the exercise of the right of eminent domain; that
1t was held by the courts that the exercise OF
this power, unless most zealously guarded, was
running against the rights of the property.
Mr.. Perry said the case Mr.. Wilson read was
an English case a hundred years old, and that
the United States Supreme Court had made
many decisions since then that took other
ground.
ASA JUDICIAL BODY.
Mr.. Wilson insisted that the law az he had
stated it was the law today. This court be
said, had no power in this case except that con-
ferred by this act andfhat of August 1890, and
he held that the act should be rlgidly
construed as to the powers OF the court
N hat ba nnvf
had nothing to do except to perfunctorly con-
firm the report. and what the court did was
not to be entered as a judgment. Mr.. Wilson
insisted that the court was sitting strictly as q
judicial body.
"Do you mean to claim" asked Mr. Perry.
that the confirmation by this court Of the
awards would constitute judgment against
the United States to the amount OF the Awards
~ propose to discuss that" said Mr.. Wilson.
II WAL come to it in a few minutes"
MIR. Wilson said that throughout both these
acts it was to the Supreme Court of the District
that the matter was to be referred 1t was
not to the judges of the court. but to the
cour. itself that the matter was re-
ferred, and it was absurd to claim that the
court was sitting here with a function
utterly foreign to its duties as a court. The
language Of the act of August. 1880, was that
the money was to be paid according to the
judgment" Of this court.
He sail the opinion by Mr.. Justice Harlan
upon the application in this case for writ of
error had stated that the two acts referred to
should be read together and that the act of the
court was purely judicial one. Mr.. Wilson
read from the full text of Mr.. Justice Harlan g
opinion as published in The STAR.
THE DUTY OF THE COURT.
There was, he claimed, an iutimation in that
opinion that were it not for another provision
Of law the court by its confirmation would
bind the government OF the United States to
the payment of IT, iiaward.
He elaine that ,opinion sustained his
contentio. that it was the duty of the court not
merely to pass on this report in a pro forma
owners were about to receive the full and fair
compensation guaranteed to them by the Con-
stitution. Mr.. Justice Harlan. he said, stated
that these property owners were entitled under
the act to full judicial protection.
This appraisement of the commissioners was
only the basis u the assessment which the
court itself I.as to make. He read the opinion
Mr.. Wilson said, to show that this was essen
TALLY, and through and through. judicial
proceeding. The courts Jurisdiction to act in
the premises was derived wholly from the
statute.
The act having committed the matter to
the court, the jurisdiction of the court was SO
limited in the statute that the court could not
confirm the report, because O confirmation
would be beyond the jurisdiction conferred by
sIr. Wilson insisted that the court had no
jurisdiction to take any further charge Of this
matter.
He read the sections of the act limiting the
amount Of land to be taken and the cost
thereof.
The commission when it negotiated with the
owners if the amount agreed upon came within
the 81, 5000 appropriated could have pur-
chased the whole tract if the owners agreed to
it.
WHAT WAS TO BE PAID.
When this negotiation failed, however, the
matter was to come to court The sum of
sl,2o0ooo was to pay expenses. &C.. and 1.-THE
cost Of lands TAKEN" which, Mr.. Wilson said,
meant the lands mapped out. Nobody, he said.
would contend that the park commission could
have entertained any proposition to pay more
than the am unt appropriated. Tho court, he
claimed, had the power to do no more than the
commission had power to do had it succeeded
in its negotiations with the owners.
The boundaries of the park, he argued, were
fixed boundaries. When the commission made
its selection and marked the boundaries its
duties in that regard were discharged. 1t was
with that whole tract that the commission had
to deal and it was with the whole tract that the
court had to deal. Neither the commission.
nor the court, nor the President could
change the boundaries Of the park unless