Evening star., 1896-10-08
Annual Report Of Attorney for the
District Thomas.
TRIALS FOR and AGAINST CITY
Railroad EntangIements and How
They Stand.
STREET EXTENSION LAW

the District, has submitted his annual re-
port to the Commissioners. In his report
Mr.. Thomas says:
There is but one District case pending
in the Supreme Court of the United States.
that of Parsons vs.. the District. This
case is certiorari to quash assessment
in respect of a water main laid in Military
road, the principal point involved being
the constitutionality OF the act of the late
legislative assembly OF the District, APP
proved June %, 1873. authorizing such
sessments. The Court of Appeals having
decided the case i'm favor of the Districl,
the petitioner took an appeal TO the SD
preme Court.
RailrOad Gases.
There are seven District cases on the
calendar of the Court of Appeals, which
will be heard during the next October
term of the court Two of them-the Bal
timore and Ohio Railroad Company and
the Baltimcre and Potomac Railroad Com
pany agair st the District-involve the
lidity of the police regulation requiring
steam railroad trains and locomotives TO
come to a full stop before crossing tn"
tracks of rapid transit street railroad.
The remaining District case upon the
docket Of the Court OF Appeals is District
vs. Bailey. This was an action brought
agairst the District in 1883 TO recover
$500 damages for an alleged breach OF
contract for resurfacing with as2haltum
certain str. cts and avenues of the city
of Washington in the year 1919
Ii is expected that all these cases will
be disposed of at the coming term of the
Court Of Appeals.
Important Opinions.
Mr. Thomas then reviews the important
| opinions affecting the District rendered
| during the year. Concerning the highway
| extension act case he says:
In the case of the District against Armes.
involving the Dennison and Leighton sub
| division, the court construed the act OF
Congress of March .. 1873, providing for a
Permanent system of highways, and held
that the part of section IL which provid.s
that when only a part of a tract of land l.
| taken the just compensation for the value
| OF the part taken shall be diminished to
| the extent of the benefits to the remainder,
| was unconstitutional. The court also held
| section ID invalid because of its failure 10
| conform to the necessary operations of
| sections and q, but that the invalidity of
| sections III and II did not render the whole
| act void. new trial has been had. and
| verdict and judgment rendered in accord
| ancc with the opinion Of The Court of Ap-
| peals, from which both the District and
| property owners have taken an appeal.
| with a view TO getting the decision of the
Supreme Court Of the United States upon
| the important questions involved as soon
| as practicable.
1t is expected in view of the public i'm
| portance of tbs that the Supreme
| III
| the coming term II Is not deemed advisa-
| ble TO proceed with the remaining cases un-
| der the highway act. until its constitution
| aIty has been finally determined by the
| Supreme Court.
| Special Improvements.
There were Al cases of certiorari against
the District to quash assessments for wafer
mains and special improvements, such as
sewers ana sidewalks. OF this number only
/ off ba Of
| the act of Congress of April -. 1896. provid-
| ing for reassessment in cases where orig
| inal assessments are thereafter cancelel
by the courts, on technical grounds u is
| believed that this act of Congress, If sus-
| tanned by the courts, will q $, ourage this
| class of litigation, and result in enabling
the District TO collect its special assess
| nents. '''
In this connection. desire to call your at
tention to the Importance OF renewing your
| efforts to have Congress, at its next ses-
| sion. amend the law in regard to the col
lection of general taxes, so as to requre
| that all arrears shall be paid before tax
| deeds are issued.
The General Term of the Supreme Court
Of the District of Columbia, having held.
in the case of Brewer VS.. District o.
| Mackey, 274(, that tax deed made in pur-
| suance Of, a sale for the unpaid taxes OF a
| certain year passes the property 10 the pur-
. | chaser discharged of the lien of all taxes
| remaining due and unpaid at the time oi
; the sale many thousands of dollars of ar
rearS of taxes are cut out, which could be
saved. if you had power to require that all
arrears should be paid before delivering tan
| deeds
The decision of the court in Brewers
case being generally known, there is much
4 | Specul lion in tax titles, not SO much With
| a view to aid the District i'm collecting it,
taxes, as with view to defeat their collec-
| tion. The extent of this business would
| suggest that some people purposely fail Il
, pay their taxes for years, allow their prop.
, | erty to be sold, get some one to buy it in
| for them, wait the two years allowed foi
| redemption. and then. through the nomina
| purchaser, come in and demand deeds. an,
| the cancellation of the arrears of taxes
| which were moi included i'm the tax sale
u | So bold has this practice become that IL
Ia | ne case, which came within my persona
knowledge. a man applied for tax dee,
- for his own property, which he had allowe,
L | to go TO sale. OF course, ne was told tina
a he could not purchase his own property
| and that tax deeds could not be issued I,
| him.
Insurance Cases.
Our law relating TO insurance ca Stat
1860 should be amended, at least so far a
= life insurance on the assessment plan 8
concerned. AS the law now stands, IRE
| sponsible parties may organize life insur
= ance companies on the assessment plan
Z. The Commissioners should he authorized L
u | examine into the methods of such com
| panies, and il they find their plans no
: feasible, or such as will not reasonably pro
% i a
. class of people. unable to fully compreher
| contracts of insurance-to refuse to Hcsn>.
a | them
- The law in regard to opening alleys need
- | amendment. Its constitutionality has bee
I, | directly questioned in a suit now pending
n | The Court of Appeals in a kindred cas-
n District VS.. Cemetery q App. ID. g, 51sl
T. has observed: ITO charge upon private II.
: diViduals the cost of a public improvement
or any proportionate share of such cosI
!, even if such proceedings be found to o.
free from apparent Inconsistency whicl
;, 1T seems to involve. would certainly no
=. be done without warrant of a statute dis
tinctly so providing.
XII Opening Alleys.
Existing law in regard TO the opening o
alleys provides for the organization of
-, jury to assess the market value of tn
- land proposed to be taken and that tn
: same jury shall at the same time appoi
'. tion the damages fol the land taken. pll
lie the cost of the proceedings, as bcneiiI
y against abutting property. In other words
n property owners are assessed for the bene
90 fits of an alley il advance of its beiH