Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-11-27
CASES WILL GO ON
Condemnation for Street Extension
Not to Be Delayed.
JURY TO WAIT FGR PAY
Judge Bingham Listens to Argu-
ments This Morning.
COX TO PRESIDE

in the District Court this morning the
court laid before the counsel a communica-
tion from Controller Bowler in reply to an
inquiry of Marshal Wilson to whether
the jurors in the condemnation proceedings
could be paid out of the general appropria-
tion for the expenses of the United States
courts. AS was foreshadowed in The Star
yesterday, the controller holds that they
cannot be. A general discussion as to the
power of the court to appoint jury in the
prepared case 419. followed, counsel for
the owners interested contending that the
matter was one in the discretion of the
court. Chief Justice Bingham, however,
doubted his power to appoint jury, in
view of the controllers decision, and, with
out finally deciding the matter, directed
that the case go over until 1 o'clock this
afternoon, that he might meantime consult
his brethren of the bench in the matter.
The opinion rendered by the controller
was as follows:
Controllers Ruling.
Il am in receipt of yours of the 2Sth,
asking whether the regular annual ap-
rropriation fees of jurors, U. S. courts.
1885, is available for paying the juries of
condemnation for their services in accord
ance with sections 10 and II of An act
to provide a permanent system of high
bia lying outside of cities, approved March
2, 1893 ca Stat, 532).
Section 10 of said act provides for a
special jury of seven persons, and section
II provides that Each of said jurors shall
receive g compensation of 81 per day for
his services during the time he shall be
actually engaged in such service
Section 3 of the sundry civil appropria-
tion act of August 50. 1880 (2G Stat, tl2),
provided special method of condemnation
for property required for the enlargement
of the government printing Office, provided
for by section of said act. The last
clause of said section 3 is as follows And
hereafter. in all cases of the taking Of
property in the District of Columbia for
public use, whether herein, heretofore,
hereafter authorized the foregoing provs-
ions, as it respects the application by the
proper officer to the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia and the proceedings
therein shall be as in the foregoing provis
ions declared
Some doubt was raised whether this
clause did not implicitly repeal the method
authorized by law for the condemnation
of property for the District of Columbia,
including that required for highways, roads
and bridges Apparently to remove that
doubt the following clause was enacted as
part of the act making appropriations for
the District of Columbia of August Z, 1884
C2S Stat, 25D.
That section 3 of the act, approved
August 30, $780, entitled An act making
appropriations for sundry civil expenses of
the government for the year ending tune
30, 1891. and for other purposes shall not
of land for public highways nor to repeal
chapter IL of the Revised Statutes of the
United States relating 20 the District of
Columbia, in regard to public highways,
roads and bridges.
From this legislation II appears entirely
clear that the provisions of chapter II of
the Revised Statutes of the United States
relating to the District of Columbia apply
to the condemnation proceedings required
by the act of March ,, 1893. above cited,
except where the provisions of said special
act may conflict Herewith.
Not Available.
Section 265, Revised Statutes, d. c.,
Being a part of chapter II thereof, pro-
vides for the cost CT a second jury of con-
demnaton when such second jury is re-
quired, and further provides all expenses
up to the second jury shall DE paid by the
District and section 26f provides a table
of fees, including jurors fees in such
cases l am informed that it has been
the uniform practice to pay all the eX-
special appropriations for the highways.
roads or bridges fer which the property
condemned under the provisions of these
SEE tions was used, and such practice seems
to have been clearly proper, if not spe-
citicaly required by the provisions of said
section 265. The regular annual appro-
pIiation for fees and jurors although
applicable to jurors in the Supreme Court
of the District of Columbia, in my opinion
was intended for the payment of the regu-
lar juries of the United States courts and
not to such special jures as the jury pro-
vided for in the act of March =, 1898, and
the practice has been to limit that ap-
preparation to regular juries and to pro-
vide fer the payment of special condemna
ton juries in cases in which the United
States are a party either from the appro-
pria tions for the work for which the prop
erty sought to be condemned was to be
used or from the appropriation 'miscel
laneous expenses, L. S. courts. The ap-
preparation miscellaneous expenses, u. S.
courts Is not available in the present case
because section 2G5. Rev. Stat, D. c., pro-
vides that the expenses i'll condemnation
proceedings for highways in the District
shall be paid by the District: therefore, in
District cases the expense would neces-
sarily be chargeable to The appropriation
for the particular work.
to your question is that the appropriation
fees of jurors, U. S. courts, 1896 is not
available for paying the iuries of con-
demnation in cases arising under the act
system of highways in that part of the
District of Columbia lying outside of
cities
Arguing the Matter.
AS has been stated in the early discussion,
Chief Justice Bingham thought that he
should not appoint the jury, and called at
tention to the fact that the street extension
act also failed to appropriate for the other
expenses, such as witness fees, fees of the
marshal, etc.
Mr. Nathaniel Wilson, on behalf of some
of the owners, called attention 10 section Q
of the act, which directs the District Com
missicners to annually submit estimates for
the necessary expenses under the act Two
small appropriations had accordingly been
made. Hence, he argued, the case was in
such a position as warranted the court in
ordering the proceedings 20 go on. 1t seem
ed to him, remarked Mr.. Wilson, that not
until just now had the Commissioners dis
covered that they were prevented from fur
ther proceeding because Of Il lack of funds
In view of the law, and Of the fact that a
small sum GID still remained uuexpended,
Mr. Wilson held that 1t was entirely compe-
tent for the court to appoint a jury in the
case now ready. Besides he stated, Jurors
frequently served here and elsewhere when
no funds were available for their pay 1t
was too late to now urge delay, for the case
having been once instituted, and a case be-
ing ready. the street extension act express
ly provided that the court should iJn1nedi-