Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-01-16
THE ROCK CREEK PARK.
Decision Of the United States Supreme Cours
In the Case.


/ IT ATHENS IN EVERY PARTICULAR TIRE DECISION
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT or
coLuMBrs-No INFRINGEMENT of THE CON-
srIrUrroSAL OR LEGAL RIoHrs OF TIKI
PLAINTIFFS.
The United States Supreme Court today.
through Judge Shiras. rendered its decision in the
RockCreek Park case and Aft rmed in every partic-
ulsr the decision Of the supreme Court of the
District of Columbia, having found in the legis-
lation creating the park and in the proceedings
under it no infringement Of the constitutional
or legal rights OF the plaintiffs in error.
The decision is a very lengthy one and re-
We've in detail the history OF the case from the
passage of the act which authorized the park
and the commission to condemn the property
| included within its limits
! The opinion reviews the enabling set aud the
provisions thereof, the story OF the various
proceedings through the local courts from mo
ton made June Is, 1891. TO dismiss the petition
of the commission. all OF which has heretofore
appeared in THE STAR, in addition to the
errors alleged by plaintiffs to have been made
IN all these proceedings in the lower courts
In their appeal to the United States Supreme
Court they alege that the United States had
no right after filing the first map Of the land
selected to abandon any part of the land. and
also that the assessment for benefits provided
for by the act of Congress was beyond the
power of the government.
The opinion first asserts its belief that the
! United States possessed full and unlimited ju-
/ risdiction over the District Of Columbia. and
therefore the right to condemn property and
use 1t for the purposes of the park. The reasons
1 fnr hla ,rvfN a.
proceeds on this ground. and takes up the
features OF the act which were claimed to invai-
idate 1t, The first was found in the provision
appointing two members of the park commits
sion-
THE COMMISSION ALL RIGHT.
1t was contended that while Congress might
create an Office it could not appoint the officer
as this right belonged to the President. The
court held that the persons whose eligibility
was questioned were already officers of the
| United States who had been appointed
previously by the President and confirmed
| by the Senate and the additional
duties imposed upon them being in &C.
cordance with their duties. that it was not
necessary that they should again be appointed
and confirmed. Congress had the power 10 in
crease the power and duties of an existing Off
Ger, these two commissioners were when
| the act was passed.
The objection made because the President
was called upon to perform certain functions
was overruled on the ground tina. the President
was called upon to appoint the commission as
| an executive duty and had nothing to do with
tine fixing Of the price of the land. but when
such was fixed it was clearly within his power
| to decide whether or not the terms were Just
| and should be accepted.
| The validity of the act was questioned on the
| ground that the limit of the amount allowed for
! the purchased land was fixed and that this was
| practically condemning land and fixing their
value. This was held not to affect by limitation
| the property holders, as il could be seen that
no limit was fixed in setting the value of any
particular piece of property.
The objection raised that the act was invalid
| because IT provided for the assessment OF bene-
I fits resulting from the location and improve
ment of the park upon lands 40 especially bene-
! fitted. The court was relieved from considera-
/ ton of this feature. as there no specific
assignment of error to 1t and because no per-
son actually assessed for special benefits was a
! party as plaintiff.
The question of the form of OATH admins
tered to the commission was raised. but the
court believed that as no definite form of oath
was prescribed that the lower court was not
wrong in prescribing in its discretion the form
to be used.
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE COMMISSION.
In one of the bills of exception complaint was
made of the instructions to the commission
given and refused by the court. In each of
these cases and in a number of other excep-
tions filed to the action and conduct of the
commissioners the opinion held that they were
properly disposed of by the court below.
The question As to whether the plaintiffs we're
entitled to an allowance in the value ASSESS
ments for the value Of alleged gold mines was
one which was discussed and argued at length
before the lower court. The history OF the
land was gone over and the court held that
il any gold existed there it was the
property of the United States. This decision
| reached by the lower court was adopted by the
United States Supreme Court. as their investi-
CATION Of the evidence failed to discover any
error in their ruling.
The action Of the lower court in confirming
! the report of the commissioners Of appraise-
ment as to q portion OF the land embraced in
the map of the proposed park and leaving
other portions OF the land Enacted on,
| which was held to invalidate the act,
the function of the map was simply to facilitate
the proceedings of the commissioners. On the
| same ground the complaint of the course Of the
lower court in acting on and approving the
Presidents decision rejected
The charge that the court was in error in not
allowing interest on the amounts assessed rs the
values of land selectedfor the park was not up
held. The interest desired was for time be-
tween the beginning of proceedings and the
payment of money to the court
Inc error Oh tnlr was the assumption that by
the mere filing of the maps the lands
were withdrawn The owner was in receipt of
rents. &C., during the period occupied in fixing
the amount to which he was entitled and the in
convenience he is subjected to is supposed to
be compensated for in the value allowed
THE EXPERT WITNESSES.
In the Court in General Term of the District
today in the case of United States
agt Cooper Brock Greek Park in
the application of Mrs. Truesdel for the
payment of expert witnesses as to gold
upon her tract Justice Hagner delivered the
opinion OF the court. Mrs. Truesdall states
that the act provides for the payment of all
witnesses, and the government has paid
some of the expert witnesses S25. but
the simple per diem to others. Justice
Hagner said the question as to the payment of
expert witnesses was unsettled in this coun-
try, and he cited the action of some
states. There was, however, no statute
here, but taking the act itself they believed
that a reasonable allowance should be made to
those who testified as to gold deposits.
They would refer the subject to the auditor
and in the term expert they did not include
any one who had worked in q mine, and on
this question they expected the auditor to re-
port.
The Nomination Of Judge McComas.
The Senate will 60 into executive session late
this afternoon to act upon the appointment of