Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-02-08
ROCK CREEK RAM.
The Awards Made by ahe AppRlelng ,Cezz
mission Confirmed hy ,tAe EOuft

/ y WV 1UtEF$
JUSTICE cox DELIVERS THE OPINION AND Re
VIEWS THE ACTION OF TIE COMMISSIONERS
AND THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BIZ COUNSEL FOR
THE owSERs-SoTIcEs OF ARRxAL GIVEN.
The Court in General Term today confirmed
the awards made by the Rock Creek Park ap-
praising commission. The opinion of the
court on the exceptions 10 the report of the
commission filed by the counsel for property
owners was pronouncedb by Mr.. Justice Cox.
| There WAS no dissent. The order confirm
ing the report will be presented to the court
tomorrow and when it has been signed the
next step to be taken in securing the park will
be the presentation Of the awards to the Presi-
| dent for his approval.
Justice Cox in announcing the decision Of the
| court said that the act under which the pro-
ceedinss were taken had defects in 1t which
| might embarrass its execution and give rise to
trouble in the future, but these defects we're
not now before the court for consideration.
| -FOUR STEPS TO BE CONSIDERED.
There were four steps to be taken under the
act in the process Of securing the land.
The first was the selection Of the land by the
commission. The next step was described in
| the third section prescribing that the commits
rate map Of the land proposed to be taken.
The next step was the ascertainment Of the
| value of the land.
The last step was the payment Of the money.
1t was provided that upon the payment Of the
| money then the title should be transferred to
the United States They were now at the third
step and it was important to ascertain what the
| duty of the court was.
The land embraced in the map filed was the
| land held to be condemned conditioually
Justice Cox read tho provisions of the act re-
hitting to the proceedings. The court, he said,
had discretion. They we're to appoint
commission to assess tie value of the land en-
braced in the map. The court had no right to
stop and criticise the acts of the commission
that selected the land.
1t was a ministerial duty imposed on the
court, and if the court refused to discharge it
the commission would have right TO O writ of
| mandamus to compel the court to discharge it.
The justice discussed briefly the various modes
followed for condemning and acquiring pos
session Of land.
MODES OF ACQUIRING LAND.
Everywhere it was recognized that q certain
| control was to be exercised over appraisements
by court The court was bound to complete
| this apprasement or assessment; il it
| set aside one appraisement it must go on with
another until the appraisement was complete.
The law Of August 3. 1880, relating to the
public printing Office, provided that in all such
| proceedings the report of the appraisers should
| be confirmed by the court 1t was correctly
| claimed that this portion Of the act of August
8, 1880, should be read into the Rock Creek
Park act. The court must complete the APP
| praisement by having an assessment made,
which the court must confirm. unless some
| good reason appeared for not confirming it.
He thought the rule that the court
would not review the findings of appraisers
simply on the evidence submitted. board of
appraisers was selected for their special fit
| ness to appraise and were not sworn, as Jury
| to find verdict according to the evidence"
He read authorities on this point The knowl-
edge gained by appraisers in viewing"
| property was not thing that could be re-
viewed by a court.
The only question here was whether the OBJ
| jections made were sufficient to justify the
court in setting aside the appraisement. He
| then considered rapidly the various excep-
| tons. A number Of those filed. he said, had
| not been insisted upon in argument The OBJ
| jections to be considered amounted really only
| to three or four in number.
THE OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
The first objection briefly was that the aggre-
gate award exceeded the appropriation. This
| was not an exception founded on any alleged
| misconduct OF the appraisers but on account Of
| alleged excess OF authority on the part of the
commission that selected the land in selecting
more than the appropriation would pay for.
The court dwelt on the absurdIty OF expecting
! the managing commission to know beforehand
what the awards would amount to. The courts
| opinion was that the appropriation a re-
but on the officers charged with paying the
| money.
| The rext objection was that the findings
| made were contrary to the evidence. The
| court, as already stated. was satisfied that as
general rule the court had no right to review
| was question when finding
J could be said to be against evidence. In this
| case the evidence consisted mainly of opinions
| of so-called experts. He could conceive that
| even in the case of this sort finding might be
| held as against the evidence-for instance. if
the appralsement largely exceeded the highest
| Claim OF the owners or fell below the lowest
| estimate of the government. But here the ap-
praisement fell between. Where testimony
| was conflicting it could not be said that the
| result was contrary to the evidence.
| The court felt that its own judgment Of val
| ues would be Of less weight than that of these
commissioners. who had had all these matters
before them. The justice referred to the affidavit
| Of s. NJ. Jones as to certain statements made by
Mr. Seufferle, one Of the appraising commits
sioners, to the effect that the commissioners
| had put aside the evidence and used their own
independent judgment. Even il this state
ment OF Jones was uncontradicted, it amounted
| only to a statement that the commissioners had
done just what they had right to do. 1t did
| not prove any misconduct on the part of the
| commission.
Another objection was made on account Of
| alleged misconduct on the part of the govern
/ uueut III pIOuuCluS TIC tcstluiOuy u witnesses
| who were not impartial and who were pro vided
| with the list of prices offered by the managing
| commission. The testimony in question was
| only the opinion of experts He knew of no
limit on the right of an expert witness to qualify
| himself by consultation or by obtaining all the
| infor nation he could beforehand.
| AS to the contention that the finding of value
was judgment against the party seeking con-
domination Justice Cox read authorities to
| show that this was not the case, and he said
this court could not give u judgment against
| tie United States and in this case the statute
provided that there could be no payment of
money beyond the appropriation.
| NO REASON TO BET ASIDE THE AWARDS.
| They had gone over the various exceptions
and found in them no reason for setting aside
these awards. The court would therefore con-
firm the report in the case of Mrs. Carpenter,
and the exceptions made by MIR. Conway Rob-
| insOn, the court, he said, confirmed both the
alternative awards, leaving it for settlement
| hereafter. which amount should be paid.
| There were several questions that might be
| raised under this act, Justice Cox said which
| the court did not propose to express an opinion
| on, as it was not, in the view of the court nee
essary now to consider them. He referred to
! the right OF the commission to select only so
much of the ground as the money appropriated
would pay for and some other questions which
had been suggested In argument.
| NOTICES OF APPEAL.
Messrs. Coleman, Lambert Albert and Will
son, representing various owners, gave notices