Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-07-14
CANNOT GRANT THE PERMIT
Defining the Authority of the Rock Greek
Park Commission.
District Water Department Wanted
to Construct Reservoir Within
the Limits of the Park.

Attorney General McKenna has given an
opinion to the Secretary of War to the eff
feet that the Rock Creek Park commission
has no authority to grant permission TO the
water department of the District of Column
bia to construct reservoir for the use of
the District within the limits of Rock Creek
Park. Application for such permission was
made by the water department. When the
Rock Creek Park commission considered
the matter it was deemed best to find out
from the attorney how far the authority OF
the commission extended.
Rock Greek Park was created by the act
of September 81 1870. in which 1t was pro-
vided: THAT a tract of land shall
be secured as hereinafter set out, and be
perpetualy dedicated and set apart
public park or pleasure ground for the
benefit and enjoyment of the people of the
United States, to be known by the name of
Rock Creek Park.
Section of the act provides that the
park shall be under the joint control of the
Commissioners of the District of Columbia
and the chief of engineers of the United
States army, whose duty it shall be, as
soon as practicable, to lay out and prepare
roadways and bride paths. to be used for
driving and for horseback riding, respec-
lively, and footways for pedestrians; and
whose duty it shall also be to make ana
publish such regulations as they deem
agenert of the same. Such regulations
shall provide for the preservation from in
jury spoliation of all timber animals or
curiosties within said park, and their re-
tention in their natural condition, as nearly
as possible.
The question submitted to the Attorney
General was: whether this board of con-
troll of lands thus designated and set apart
public park or pleasure ground for the
benefit and enjoy ment of the people of the
United States has any power or dominion
over the park save those conferred in sec
ton l."
Powers of the Board.
In his opinion the Attorney General
quotes the law in the case. and says:
In CT nsidering this statute and the pow
ers of the board of control. We must not. of
course, restrict it to limits which would
preclude the objects which are plainly in
tel ded by the statute: that is the crea-
ton of a public park pleasure ground
where people of the United States could re-
sort and find place of enjoyment In or
der to constitute a park of this sort 1T is
necessary for the board of control to have
the powe to make it a place of enjoyment
and Of pleasure by the improvement of the
scenery, the opening OF roadways, bride
paths, footways. the construction of foun-
tains, rustic seats, arbors and such other
conveniences as are required in a park
which is set aside for the pleasure and en-
jcyment Of the people. 1t is no doubt also
within their power. If they see proper, %
plant trees, shrubbery, cultivate flower
gardens and do things of a like nature
which would tend to adorn and make the
place more attractive. But here the ques-
ton presented is whether or not they can
devote this property, thus set apart. for the
purpose of the erection of a reservoir to be
used as a part of the water system of the
District of Columbia. In other words, has
the board of control the power to take
this property designated and set apart by
the act OF Congress as a pleasure resort
for all the people of the United States who
desire to come and enjoy it, and devote 1t
in part to the municipal uses of the Dis
trict CT Columbia by the erection of a res
ervoir to be used in connection with the
water system OF the said District.
Does Not Admit of Argument.
THE question does not seem to admit of
argument, and l unhcsitatingly say that
there is no such power vested in tie board
of control. 1t would. in my opinion. be an
entire perversion of the purposes of the
dedication. If the board of control has the
power under the act to authorize the wafer
department of the District OF Columbia to
construct a reservoir within the limits OF
the park for the use of the District. then
it would follow that the board has the
right to authorize the use of the park for
any other public purpose demanded by the
District authorities and thus this tract Of
land, which was condemned under an act
of Congress and dedicated as public park
for the benefit of the whole people of the
United States, might eventually be devoted
entirely to the necessities of the District of
Columbia and the object of the dedication
defeated.