Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-01-20
ARGUMENTS AND Arr1pAv1rs.

ARGUMENTS AND AFFIDAvIrs.
The Effort to Overthrow the Report Of the
Rock Creek Appraisers.
COMMISSIONERS sEuFFfRLE coSrRADrcTs 1HE
STATEMENT OF Mr. JoSEe-MR. LAMBERr Ar
CUES AT LENGTH AGAINST THE APPROVAL OF
THE AwARDs-PoINTs RAISED TODAY.
The arguments on the objections to the
| awards made by the appraising commission to
| the owners of the Rock Creek Park lands began
| in earnest in the Court in General Term today
and began on a scale which promised to occupy
two or three days. Chief Justice Bingham
and Justices Cox and James we're on the bench.
Yesterday the argument was on somo prelimi-
nary questions or side issues. The general at
| tack on the validity Of the Rock Creek Park
net and the validity OF an award exceeding the
appropriation was not begun until this morn
| ing, when Mr.. Lambert resumed his argument.
The affidavit of Mr.. Seufferle, ono of the sp-
praising commissioners. contradicting the
| statement made IN an affidavit by Mr.. Samuel
N. Jones, one of the owners to the effect that
Mr. Seufferle told him the appraisers put aside
the evidence and used their own judgment,
Mr.. I. A. Lambert. before entering on his
| argument. said that he would consider that the
affidavit of Mr.. Jones and any counter affidavit
| as filed.
District Attorney Cole said the counter afi-
davit would be filed shortly.
Mr.. Lambert said he had received a note
from Mr.. Jones saying thatif his statement was
| contradicted he would like to go on the stand.
Mr.. Lambert then began his argument on
the exceptions filed in behalf Of the property
l hav tai tarv
first to the exceptions. alleging that the ap-
praisement was in excess OF the limitations as
| to amounts appropriated by Congress for the
park, and that the lands designated for the park
by the managing commission exceeded in value
the sum OF 81 ,200, 600. fixed as a limit by Con-
gress Mr.. Lambert read from the Rock Creek
Park act, and reviewed the history of the pro-
| ceedirgs. He said that the offers made by the
managing commission to property owners
amounted in the aggregate to 10000,
but these offers having been rejected
In nearly every case, the commission
to appraise the lands, whose report is
now being considered, was appointed.
He referred TO the question early raised as to
the validity of an act which sought to place in
| advance value on the lands by limiting the
appropriation to q certain amount The court,
he said, preferred to regard the legislature as
not having intended to Tx absolutely the linz
its, and instructed the appraising commission
that they wore not to regard the limitations as
made awards exceeding by about 600, 900 the
amount appropriated by Congress. 1t would
do. he said, for the other side to say that the
awards would be circumscribed and the amount
OF land taken reduced in amount SO as to come
within the appropriation. 1t was axiom, he
| said, that an award must be approved as a
| whole not at all. Mr. Lambert cited mum q.
Der OF authorities in support Of this PROPOSE
ton.
1--WE shan't take issue with you on that" said
h,oS-, I@In ssNT ,lx-n H..
court to confirm the award as a whole"
They had, Mr.. Lambert continued, one
| specific appropriation for one specific object
Neither the court nor the President. he insisted,
could lawfully involve the government in any
contract involving future appropriation or
bind the government to any payment in excess
OF an appropriation.
JUDGE Cox's REMARKS.
Judge Cox said that he did not see what
the court had to do with this question. The
court had nothing to do, under the act with the
selection OF the lands to be included in the
park. The court appointed appraisers and
their return was made to the court. The court.
he thought, had the right to set aside the re-
port if it was found the commission had vio-
lated the fundamental or constitutional rights
of any one.
MIR. Wilson said he wanted to discuss that
question before the court made up its mind
about it.
Mr.. Justice Cox said that the court was 1t
| called upon by the act to affirm this report set
| was undoubtedly the right of the court to was
aside the report on objections, but the court no
not called upon to affirm it.
MIR. Lambert read from the opinion Of Mr..
Justice Harlan.i lin denying the application for a
writ of error, statement to the effect that the
report of the appraisers was to form the ba sis
OF an assessment to be made by the court
Mr.. Justice James said that this was not de-
cision which authority. For himself he
| disagreed with the opinion as to the court 8
function in this matter.
Mr.. Lambert said the report was here for a
purpose-for the purpose OF having the report
confirmed or rejected Mr.. Lambert having
argued at some length that there had been u
violation Of the statute, Mr.. Justice Cox re-
| marked that If there was any violation Of
| the law it must have been by the first commits
| sion, that selected too much land, and not by
the appraisers, who simply put value on the
land.
Mr.. Perry asked Mr.. Lambert il he contended
| that the action of this court in confirming the
report bound the government to any payment
whatever.
Mr.. Lambert argued that it did, holding that
| the action of the court vas in the nature of a
| judgment and that the effect OF the approval
| of the report was the same as in the case of
the approval of report Of the auditor of the
court
The court or members Of it evidently did not
agree with Mr. Lambert as to his view of the
effect and character OF the action OF the court
| MIR. Justice Cox said that confirmation by the
court amounted only to an expression Of judg-
| ment by the court US to the value OF the land.
This he said, was merely an ascertainment of
values.
CONSIDERING THE EXCEPTIONS.
Mr.. Lambert next proceeded to the consider
alton Of the exceptions, which set forth gener-
ally that the report was contrary to the evil
dence. Mr.. Lambert went into discussion of
| the qualifications OF the witnesses called on
| each side of the case.
After reviewing in brief the cases Of Messrs
| Paul, Saunders and Truesdell. who had been,
| he said furnished with the commission "price
| list" and after consulting together had SUBJ
stantially agreed, Mr.. Lambert spoke Of what
he termed the cooperative method of arriving
| at results.
He said his remarks were designed to i'm
peach the results, but not to impute anything
| against the integrity of the men. The ingen-
uOusness with which they disclosed the pro-
cesses by which they arrived at their conclu-
sions was the best evidence of their honesty
| Still they had not had, as they should have
had, the individual judgment of these wit
| nesses
| Mr.. Lambert compared average prices paid
by the California Syndicate with the average
prices awarded by the appraisers. He analysed
1 tha 40