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

1 ." aSot Va ~ OF doWn n buNn
There were monuments set mp all around II.
showing that the government had taken IT, Yet
IL was claimed that the government could now
reeede; that they eoald even recede after ask
ing and obtaining the confirmation OF this
court
When the government asked the court 10
confirm the report Mr.. Wilson held the au-
thorities were that the government could not
| recede.
Mr.. Justice Cox said that the act required
| the PRESIDENTS approval after the court had
passed upon the award. and thus
pressiy Reserved the right of objection.
Mr. Justice James asked whether in case the
awards fell within the appropriation and there
was no question on that point the court con-
hrmed the awards and the President declined
TO approve it, the confirmation OF the court
would, in NJ. Wilson's opinion. be Judgment
| against the United States, which the United
states would have to pay OF whether the Presi-
0ent could reverse n judgment OF the court.
M wilson claimed that that did not touch
ms point. II there had been no limit placed
by Congress on the amount to be paid it might
| De conceded, Tor the sake OF argument, that the
/ government would have the right TO recede or
| to abandon the proceedings.
| Mr.. Justice Cox suggested that the law
read the court was merely to ascertain the
| values.
Mr.. Wilson said that the court had no right
70 take any step that even tended to commit
| the government TO a payment greater than the
amount appropriated.
| JUSTICE JAMES QUESTION.
| ''The question is" said Mr.. Justice James.
whether We do commit Congress to such a:psy-
ment"
Mr. Wilson said that IL was the petitioner
the Rock Creek Park commission, that came into
court and asked the court to confirm a report
that was S3OO,OO0 in excess of the appropria-
ton. They ask the court to confirm this re-
port
Mr.. Justice James called attention 10 the
TACT that under the act the land was held as
condemned when the map was filed and asked
whether the action of the court could be con-
| sidered as Judgment of condemnation.
| Mr. Wilson said that the filing of the map
| was legislative condemnation coupled with a
| condition as to the amoGnt TO be paid. The
act Itself, he said, was a most serious Judgment
OF condemnation on Congress itself for passing
| such an incongruous act and sending il into
| court to unravei its intricacies.
| Mr.. Perry called attention TO what be con-
| sioered Inconsistencies in Mr.. Wilson's argu-
ment, as he had quoted Mr.. Justice Harlan to
snow that this court was to ascertain the values
and now Claimed that this court could not
proceed further.
AFTER RECESS.
After the noon recess of the court Mr.. Wilson
proceeded. he said the commission sought to
have the report confirmed, anticipating legisla-
ton. In Mr.. Wilson's view this court did not
/
this property could be purchased for. for Con-
gress had already fixed the limit to be paid
/ Tor it.
To fix any amount beyond what Congress had
nxed. he thought, was going beyond thepowerr
conferred by the act. They had no right to
anticipate any legislation. They could deal
only with the act they had. To all intents and
| purposes this property had been taken when
the map was filed by Mr.. Wilscn and the COM
| pensation was fixed which the government
nav and hof fha
| could not pay.
| According to that argument Ir. Perry said
the government could net have receded after
the filing OF the map.
Mr.. Coleman said it certainly could not re-
| cede after the ascertainment OF the value.
Mr.. Wilson said Mr.. Perry was not right be-
| cause notice of abandonment was given in
| advance by the act in fixing the amount to be
| paid. When it WAS asccr tanned that the amount
exceeded the appropriation that ended the pro-
| ceedings. They could not be said to assume
| that Congress would change its mind.
When this court confirmed the award be
claimed the President could not interfere to
prevent that judgment from becoming a valid
judgmen: against the United States. The court
could not make such a judgment under the act,
| therefore he claimed thatit had no jurisdiction
| under the act.
| TO BE CONSIDERED EACH AS WHOLE.
Mr.. Wilson then argued that the tract and the
| award were to be considered each as a whole.
Suppose. he said, the owners had not objected
| to the awards. could the United States have
taken part and rejected a par? He did not
think that idea would prevail for a moment
Mr.. Wilson said that if the court could
confirm it could reject 1t was not sitting for
the purpose of receiving whatever came from
| this appralsing commission without question.
He conceded that the commissioners were gen :
| tlemen of the highest character, but gentlemen
| OF the highest character sometimes nude mis-
4 f-E rpoc htx- xaT OIL H..
just and fair compensation was paid.
The only criticism that be had to make upon
this report, 60 far the interest he represented
was concerned, was that it was not sustained bv
the evidence. The value fixed was far below
| the value given to the property by the evidence.
/ and he maintained that the price fixed was
grossly inadequate.
He argued from authorities already i, the
case that the commission could not put aside
| the evidence in the case and depend upon their
view OF the property. The use and the only
use to which the view could be applied was to
enable the commission to Judge of the weight
| OF the evidence submitted to il. The case like
| every other case, was to be decided according
to the weight OF the testimony. He therefore
| proposed TO argue the case Just as though il
was a motion for q new trial in q case in which
| a verdict had been rendered, and it was claimed
| the verdict was not in accordance with the evil
dence.
Mr. Wilson then described the 245 acre Shoe.
NJ
| corning 1t from his point Of view. He expressed
the hope that before the court decided this oues-
| ton that the court would look into the testi-
mony and see whether their exceptions were
| not well taken. There were examined ON the
part of the owners of the Shoemaker
| tract ten men, men Of large experi-
ence The lowest estimate of vsf1e put on
this land by any one of these witnesses was
81 ,450 an acre. One OF the governments wit
nesses placed the value at $780, These esti-
mates excluded the value Of the water power Of
q sixty-two foot fall within this tract.
The commission fixed the value at ss43 An
acre. He asked the court also to consider the
sales made in the vicinity Of this tract. he
asserted that these sales would sustain the tes
| tilnony given in behalf Of the owner
Mr.. Wilson, as other counsel. had devoted
| some time to a consideration OF the testimony
of Messrs. Paul. Truesdell and Saunders. Mr..
Goldsborough, he said, was admittedly in
competent to testify as to this tract He
claimed that the examination showed that little
weight could be attached to the testimony of
these witnesses He claimed, moreover. that
there was an inherent vice in the testimony.
arguing to show that there had been an agree,
n,ent and an effort to bring the prices within
the appropriation.
Mr.. Wilson continued his argument until the
adjournment of the court
Mr.. Perry stated during the argument that
he would give the court a COPY of his arxu-
ment on the facts Of the case made before the