Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-01-22
THE ROCK CREEK PARK.
MT. Perry Answers Insinuations Against the
Commission.

Il
| Commission.
THE ARGUMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT MADE
| ToDAY-ADDREssEs By Mr.. COLE AND MR.
PERRY-rHE GOVERNMENT NOT BOUND EXCEPT
By THE FINAL ACT OF THE COMMISSION.
The other side of the Rock Creek Park case
before tho Court in General Term was heard
| today. Mr.. Coleman finished his argument and
counsel for the government took the floor with
the understanding that Mr.. Wilson would fol-
low them and close the case.
Mr.. Coleman finished his argument, holding
that the awards were contrary to the testimony.
de said that his client simply asked to be let
alone.
The property of Shoemaker. he said, would
probably net him in two or three years time at
the rate real estate is advancing a million dol
lars more than this commission awarded him.
He repeated that the project had been pushed
In the interest Of a real estate enterprise. That
interest he maintained secured the appoint
ment OF the park commission, and hence had
governed all the proceedings. 1t had selected
the witness Paul, and Paul had secured the
other witnesses, who with him had held consul
tatlons and agreed upon a scale of prices to be
paid.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY COLES ARGUMENT.
District Attorney Cole, who followed Mr..
Coleman, said he did not fully understand the
closing suggestion of Mr.. Coleman, that the
appointment of the commission had been Sc
cured by certain influence in the interest of
private enterprise. That was what Mr.. Cole
man said. He did not know how Mr.. Coleman
found 1t out. There no evidence of such
fact before the court. He understood Mr.
Coleman to object to further proceedings be-
cause Of this influence, which he seid had been
used In securing the appointments
There was in what Mr.. Coleman said a sug
gestion that the President himself was in a sort
Of combination to advance the interests OF a
private enterprise. Ever if persons interested
had used their influence to secure the appoint
ment OF certain persons he did not know that
this court had any corrective power.
WHAT TIE PRESIDENT MIGHT DO.
He did not know but what if the President
learned that he had made an error, that this
whole scheme was at the outset an imposition
upon Congress to advance private interests,
the President. who still had veto power in
this matter, might exercise it. The counsel
complained that it was n hardship that the
PRESIDENT had that power He believed that it
would be held that Congress had acted with a
great deal OF wisdom in making provision that
after all these proceedings were had the Presi-
dent still should have the right to say whether
public interests would be served by approving
the project.
Fit were believed that this project was in
tended to advance private interests the Presi-
dent was the proper tribunal to address on the
subject. There was nothing on record to show
that any one had been in the slightest degree
olhcious III this matter or had had any purpose
OF advancing private interest or had USED in
huence with such purpose.
The argument of counsel seemed to be based
on the assumption that this court was setting
as commission to ascertain the value of this
property and not as judicial body. So far as
he was concerned he would treat the argument
OF the other side as if that were an erroneous
assumption under the act. The courts powers
were clearly defined by the act.
AS TO MR.. WILSON'S ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Wilson, having entered court, inter-
rupted Mr.. Cole to state that he would be able
he thought, to make his argument Monday
morning.
Chief Justice Bingham suggested that the
government would probably occupy all of to-
day.
Mr.. Perry said he thought the government
would finish by recess and that the case could
be closed today if counsel for the property
owners could go on.
Mr.: Wilson said he was in doubt whether he
could be In the court this afternoon, but he
would try.
THE DUTY OF THE COURT.
Mr.. Cole then proceeded with his argument,
citing authorities to sustain his position, that
under the act the whole duty of this court was
to pass upon the report for the purpose of
seeing whether any wrong principle of law had
been involved i'll the finding of these apprais-
ers. He did not believe any one of the coun-
sci had claimed that these appraisers had in
any manner departed from the instructions of
the court.
Mr.. Lambert said that counsel had claimed
that the commissioners had depar ted from the
instructions of the court in disregarding the
evidence.
Mr.. Cole said that there was no express in
structlon by the court that they should regard
the evidence.
Dir. Lambert said that was implied They
we're instructed to hear such evidence as might
be offered.
They were not sworn like jury to find
verdict according to the evidence" remarked
Mr.. Justice Cox.
Mr.. Cole said the only evidence that the
court had that the testimony had been disre-
garded was an affidavit by Mr.. Jones as to O
declaration by Mr.. Seufferle. an affidavit which
was contradicted by Mr.. Seufferle's deposition
and by the statement of the whole commission
In making their report.
WHAT WOULD BE IMPROPER.
Mr.. Cole argued for some length that an
inquiry as to what occurred IN the delibera-
lions OF the commission would be improper
He claimed, however, that if Mr.. Jones' affi-
davlt was admitted that it was fully met by
that Of Mr.. Seufferle. Even admitting, how
ever, that Mr.. Jones' statement was true and
that it was true that the commission had
thrown aside the evidence and exercised
their own judgment, he was salts
fed that the commission had the right
if they thought the testimony of the experts
was 80 conflicting as to be an unsafe guide to
throw aside the testimony and base their
awards on their own judgment made up after
viewing the testimony and considering all the
circumstances.
As to the argument based on the statement
that the awards, together with moneys already
paid out, exceeded the appropriation, Mr.. Cole
said that that was not a question for this court
whose action did not involve the paying out of
any money. This court was not a disbursinp
officer and was not concerned. The statute
was directed to the fiscal officers of the govern
ment and officers that made contracts and not
to courts that had to determine only the
rights Of individuals. The Court of Claims,
however. every day entered judgments
against the United States for sums not
appropriated. Possibly this question might
be considered by the President Of the United
States when he came to consider tho matter
but this court had only to determine whether
this appraisal Was a fair and reasonable one. The
commission could not pay out one dollar On the
CIDER OF the court approving this report. If
the court approves the report, the President
approves ii, and it is LETT to the commission
to take SO much of the land as the appropria-
ton would pay tor, what law would be violated
then? Was it the intention that in case this
commission mapped out one acre of land mora