Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-01-21

MEN WHO SECURED TIE PAssAoE OF THE ACT
When the Court In General Term met today
Mr. James Coleman began his argumen; in be-
half OF his client, Mrs. Corneiia o. Trnesdell,
one of the owners Of land in the proposed Rock
creek Park, who has objected to the awards
made by the Gppraising commission. Mr.. Cole
man argued that notwithstanding the park law
aid not IN words provide that the awards bad
10 be confirmed by the court the general pro-
visions OF the act approved August 80. $780,
providing for the condemnation Of site for
the government printing Office applied. This
required that in all cases thereafter such re-
ports or awards should be approved or con-
nrmed by the court. He claimed that the court
not only had the power, but ii was its duty 20
connrm or reject the report of the appraisers.
Inc property owners had q right 90 have the
case reviewed by this court and IL not
satisfied with the decision OF this court
10 nave an appeal 20 the Supreme
Court OF the United States The property
owner had right to test the question of what
the law.
Mr.. Coleman spoke next as to the effect OF
the awards exceeding the appropriation.
An UNPREcEDENTED STATE OF FACTS.
The case. he said, presented an unprece-
tented state Of facts. Congress said il would
give Sl.2oO, 600 to pay for a certain piece OF
land. The government. or its agents had
agreed TO pay in the neighborhood Of q, &c.,
600. The court had no right 20 assume that
Congress would make an additional appropris-
ton. To hang these proceedings up indefi-
nitely for the purpose of securing. IL possible.
an additional appropriation would practically
amount to confscation of the property.
There was nothing in the history of legislation
that justified such an association. Ever since
he. .nFs -, S1aA
there had been a cloud upon the title of the
property of his client The government had
put It's hand upon 1t. Back to the very be-
ginning of the agitation for the park four
years ago there had been n cloud on the
property which prevented it's being sod
There was way out Of this situation lie
Claimed, but by an abandonment of these pro-
ceedings. IL the awards were confirmed how
could the lands be paid for! The government
had paid, he understood, $3.50, 900 for property
already purchased by private agreement. How
were they TO divide the remainder among
these eighty-two owners? IL they deducted q
percentage from each award the owner would
not receive just compensation. His client he
SAID did not wish to raise any factIous or tech
meal objections to the park project. His
client was willing that her land should be taken
FOR park provided she paid the value Of
her land as shown by the testimony.
HIS CLIENT NOT OPPOSED TO THE PARK.
She had not been opposed to the park
project, but she did insist on having her rights
Mr.. Coleman, however. said there was no
public need for such an immense park. What
was 1t for! There was where the trouble came
The commission had taken in property that
| they did not need and had done II for a pur-
pose. He did not charge any improper m 1tiye
| upon the commissioners. but they had been in
tuenced by those who had interested them
selves In securing the passage of this act The
purpose was obvious. Tie did not wish to
charge any wrong to any one connected in any
way with these proceedings. He did know that
| In city which was a park itself. which was
full Of parks, there was great public need
for this Improvement
Have you ever seen the map prepared years
ago for park" inquired MIR. Justice Cox. Il
think 1t provided for about 900 acres"
Chief Justice Bingham said that it had been
intimated that the government might take a
| certain number of these tracts: that the Presi-
dent might decide that the awards were reason
able and that the public good required taking
portion of the land. This raised the question
whether this was TO be considered as eighty
two proceedings combined in one and whether
each parcel could not be considered as a sepa-
rate case.
WHO WOULD BE BESEFIrEp.
Mr.. Coleman said that the counsel would
touch on that question. Continuing, he said
that this park, If established, would greatly
benefit some one.
1T will greatly benefit the owners" said Mr..
Perry.
NJ. Coleman said that in the map OF this
region they would see q tract of land on the
west side of the park running clear out to Ten
| leytown. There was an electric road running
| through il. They would see the names OF
various owners. II the gentlemen owning this
property could get this vast tract Of land in
| Guided within the park limits out of the
market they could get back what they paid for
these n do mr.
| the valuations to keep it within tho limits
Of the appropriation they would find were
largely interested in this tract west Of the park.
They had taken out OF the market
sites in the suburbs OF Washington,
now they were advertising their own property
for villa sites. He did not want to put anything
in the way Of the enterprise of these men, so
far the rights of others were not violated.
There had been a strong effort of resistance by
| the owners to this park project 1t was simply
for the reason that they had taken more land
| than they needed or could pay for, not for any
good public purpose, but to foster a private
enterprise. These owners said they were not
opposed to any project that contemplated I'M
proving and building up the city, but they did
object to having those interested in a private
investment putting their hands into these own
ers' pockets to pay for their enterprise.
ONLY ONE WAY 10 TAKE THE PROPERTY.
There was but one way, in his judgment,
that the government could take this property
now, and that was by means Of a new act of
Congress. The government certainly could
not take the lands without paying in full the
awards made by the appraising commission,
and they did not have money enough for that
Mr.. Justice James inquired if the President
could not say. In his discretion. that the gov
eminent would take only certain portions or
certain parcels, thus keeping the sums TO be
paid within the appropriation.
Mr. Coleman said that before they finished
counsel could call attention to what the statutes
said on this matter.
Mr.. Coleman criticised the park act as being
unsatisfactory il not unconstitutional He did
not think it fair that after proceedings
had been had for six months il should remain
for one man, the President. who could not
review the proceedings, TO settle it all with a
scratch of his pen. The clause in the act re-
ferring to the President said only that the
President should decide whether the prices
were reasonable.
Mr. Justice James said that there was one
consideration in this connection. Congress
might have intended tat after the fair value
had been ascertained the President should
decide whether 1t was worth that much to the
government for the purposes intended
.1he question of expediencY," suggested Mr..
Perry.
Mr.. Coleman did not think this suggestion
threw any light upon this clause or explained
its presence in the net.
NEWSPAPER CLIPPING.
Mr.. Coleman read a newspaper Clipping con-