Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-07-12
STREET EXTENSION LINES
Prot. Riley Replies to the Statement Of Mr..
]. B. Winner,
A Further Contribution to the Con-
ttcut Avenue Detection.
% the Editor of The Evening Star:

anu ne1BhDOr, j. Is. winner, endeaVOfS 10
defend the proposed Connecticut avenue
abnormity in connection with my protest
against the same.
1t would seem that said protest must
have unduly excited Mr.. Winner, since it
has caused him to fall into an unnecessary
number of misstatements. as / shall
presently show. All the essential argu-
ments made by me remain, however, I'M
challenged. That Mr.. Winner represents a
small minority, and that the consensus of
opinion, both of the residents of the region
affected and of the citizens generally, is
against him; that he has been personally
and professionally the chief opponent of
straight extension; that the Commissioners
have been most inconsistent in their
actions as to the same, one set undoing
the acts of its predecessors; that the grant
ing of the subdivision of the Phelps tract
and the consequent premature Endorsement
CT the crook was inconsistent with pre-
vious refusals and against the expressed
majority views Of citizens. of the board
of trade, and of Commissioners RosseI,
Douglass, Parker and Truesdell; that it was
granted pending consideration of the gen.
eral street extension plans, which were to
be finally submitted to a superior commits
sion-aI these vital contentious are ac-
copied by my critic either in direct aomis-
sion or in silence, as was indeed unavoid-
able. since they are incontestable facts.
MS guns are leVeleO at minor points,
which have but the remotest bearing on
the main issue. Yet even at these he fires
recklessly and without effect; for, with one
solitary exception, all the supposed in
against the protest in question are either
imaginary, or else based on careless read
ing or misunderstanding of the facts in
the case.
Alleged inaccuracies.
Thus he charges that California, Wyom-
ing and Kalorama avenues receive my con-
domination, etc. There is not a word of
condemnation of these avenues in the I'M
vanished historical explanation which I
nave given of their non-conformity to the
city plan. end my friend should at least
take pains to read plain English in his at
tempts to criticise, lest he be charged with
that recognized sign of weakness in argu-
lnent, viz, the setting up a man of straw
Tor want of anything else to knock down!
short, parallel roadways, totally isolated
from and disconnected with any other
street systems, are denominated avenues,
because, as Mr. Winner intimates. they are
parallel with Rhode Island avenue, miles
away. will be duly appreciated by that
portion of the public which has a sense of
numor, but the fact has, otherwise, moth
Ing to do with the case.
Again, he makes Inc say that the fifty-
&c OF roadway between California and Kali
Drama avenues lis not opened, but pro-
Jected, putting the quotation in the pres
ent tense, and then offering, in refutation
the fact known to everybody in the least
interested, viz, that the road was asphalt
eo some Two years ago under the permit
system My protest shows that 1t was de-
scribed as mot opened, but proiected''
April 2, 1887, on the very TruesdelI subdi-
vision which he refers to rs recorded i'm
hber county No. &, folio Il; but this subdi-
vision does r.ot show the fifty-foot extern
SIGN, as he asserts. 1t shows just what
nave stated in the protest, viz, a one hun
dred-foot roadway from Wcodley road to
kalorama avenue, and contains the proof
that the road was not then opened up to
the south. 1t was not till July of the
same year QSSO that the north fourth of
this f1tty-foot roadway was recorded in Mr.
PresbreJs subdivision, and though 1 have
verifying this fact, I feel confident that
Surveyor Forsyth will testify, If need be- to
the accuracy of the statement. One who
undertakes to criucise and charge others
utterances, and 1t is even more remarkable
that wide-awake real estate agent should
be SO unfamiliar with the records of the
surveyors office than that he should con-
and misunderstood, in his attempt to make
out case!
Not Originally Deaicated.
The history Of that cross road is, in short,
just as given in my protest, and it was, as
there stated, originally not dedicated to the
District. Opened up as mud road some
seven years ago. three-fourths of it re-
manned for FEARS private property Col
Truesdell and r. E. Morris, in whose names
the lots between California and Wyoming
avenues stood during those years, and
yet stand on the assessors books, paid
no taxes on them it is true, and ulti-
mately decided them to the District The
dedicatory deed which Mr.. Winner has read,
and which was made loEg after the road
0ynar nod
date anything 1 have said, and was not, so
far as-I have been able to ascertain, ac-
conpanied by any record in the surveyors
office. Even as late as the meeting of July
II, 1893 before the Commissioners, Mai.
Powell stated that he could find no title in
the District to this road, or portions of it.
Indeed, about that time 1t was openly
charged that the piece just south of Pres
hands; that, though a deed of dedication
had been made by the owner, it had never
been ratified or recorded, but was held IN
his safe by Mr.. Winner, as agent who even
cially one of the property owners along the
line that he would not consummate the
deed. and would thus close up the street
if his own plans were opposed.
1t seems that Col. Truesdeil sold the lot
to Mrs. Stevens on the northwest corner
of California avenue and the cross street,
and that Mr.. Winner did not. Even this
very great blunder of mine Is connected
Mr.. Winner has well-nigh had monopoly
of sign advertisements In that neighborhood,
while rome CT Col. Truesde'Ps has been
seen there for years. But--tha. ,kful for the
correction and admitting the error-ny
that the sale of this lot and the
other acts referred to interfered with the
plan Of widening the street in the west,
which had been previously contemplated,
is not in the least affected thereby; where
as the other contention, from the same
data, that these were evidence Of the
at one time of this cross
street as Connecticut avenue extended Is
greatly strengthened by the correction. For
it Is almost inconceivable that Col. Trues-
dell, after having subdivided and paved to
the roI tn in conformity with projected
plan which ran through that lot, would have
deliberately destroyed that projected Plan
except upon some assurance or conviction
that it was abandoned.
1 will close the present sufficiently long
letter by calling attention to topographic
al error In my published protest. The pass
age runs thus: That the action above re-
ferred to was taken and the curve sane
toned in the honest conviction that 1t was
wisest for economical and other reasons
will not be doubted by any (one) who
knows the high personal worth and in
tegrity of Maj. Powell and his associates
In the act" &c. I wrote associate" and
this little has done an apparent injustice
to ex-Commiss;oner NJ. M. Parker; for
there are but two names Chose of Ross and
H. 80 ~