Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-09
MILWAUKEE STREET.
The Comm ssioners Hear Arguments For and
Against lite Opening and Extension.

The Commissioners Hear Arguments For and
Against Its Opening and Extension.
The opening and extension of Milwaukee
street from Cleveland Heights to Connecticut
avenue extended formed the subject Of hear
ing before the Commissioners this afternoon.
1t was originally intended to have the hearing
on the 25th of April, but it was postponed to
give the directors a chance to be heard
When the hearing opened this afternoon there
were present to object Messrs. Gardiner G.
Hubbard, C. c. Duncanson, C. J. Bell and John
Ridout, attorney. Those who favored the OPEN
ing extension were represented by Senator
Stewart and Messrs. Waggaman and Stell-
wagon.
Mr.. Ridout on the part Of the directors
filed the following objections:
That the law under which said extension is
proposed to be made applies only to roads and
not TO streets.
That the law has been superseded SO far as the
opening or extension of such streets as Mil
waukee street is concerned by the act of Con-
gress approved March 2, 1898. entitled
IAN act to provide permanent svs-
tenn Of highways in that part of the Dis
trict of Columbia lying outside of the cities,
and the Commissioners no longer have author
itv to decide whether the proposed extension
will be conducive to the public interests or is
required by the public convenience, but ex-
question
is rested in the Supreme Court of the District
of Columbia.
That the public convenience does not in fact
require the immediate opening or extension of
said street.
That the said proposed extension is demanded
only for private purposes of persons interested
in subdividing adjoining land
That no estimate has been submitted to Con-
gress nor has any appropriation been made to
pay the expense OF cJndemning and opening
the proposed extension of said street
That the petiticIers for such extension in
fact represent Orgy single interested party.
Mr.. Ridout II arguing the objections com
menced by stating 1t was the desire of practi-
caliy one man at the expense of number to omen
| this street. There was no necessity for the
| opening Of the street. There were few
houses north of Milwaukee avenue. so
be of no be iefi. to them, while those living on
! the south of the street were amply provided
| for in the way of streets The Commissioners
had no authority 10 open this street with
out specific appropriation. This they
! did not have. He main tanned they could
not open this street and enter into
/ an agreement with private parties to pay the
| damages. He cited the decision in the Blake
case i'll the widening of Columbia road in
support of his argument. He held that the
law under which the proposed proceedings
were to be taken was imperative FOR the reason
that it was intended for the opening of
county roads and not streets. But even if it
were applicable to the opening of streets it had
been superseded by the act of March 8. 1898.
providing for permanent system of highways
Senator Stewart held there was great ne
cessity for the opening OF this street and the
public demanded it. Its opening would afford
better facilities for travel and throw upon the
market a quantity Of desirable property.
Mr.. Pierre Waggaman also spoke in favor Of
the opening of the street.
The Commissioners reserved their decision