Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-12-20

1885, This and some twelve or fifteen 9TH
er bills introduced between that date and
January, 1880. provided for the extension
OF the following streets: North Capitol
northwest, 9Th stree; northwest 9th street
northwest, 18th street, 18th street, 18th
street. 18th street. 18th street, 18th street.
21st street, DelaWare avenue, New York
nue.. Rhode Island avenue, Massachusetts,
avenue, Sheridan avenue, and Whitney
avenue, and for the laying out of a road
LOO feet wide along Rock creek from Mas
sachusetts avenue to the northern bound
airy of the District of Columbia
LAS early as February Is, 1886, Senator
ingalls, introduced a bill providing for the
making of a map extending the streets and
entire District This was a very brief bill
and had no provision for condemnation pro-
ceedings Senate. bill 1919, Forty-ninth
Congress- first SESSION., This was followed
on the 10th of April. 1885, by bill intro
duced by Senator Malone Senate bill 22O1
Forty-ninth Congress, first SESSION. provid-
ing for extending the streets and avenues
of the city from their termini at Boundary
street and for the laying out of streets rum
ming cast and west parallel to the city
streets through that territory bounded by
Rock creek On the west, Lincoln avenue
and the Soldiers Home on the east, Bound
airy street on the south. and Piney Branch
and Spring road on the north. This was l.
carefully prepared bill containing twenty
five sections. and provided for the issue of
bonds to the amount of two and one-half
million dollars for the purpose of paying
the expenses of condemnation proceedings
under the act. Between April 1885, and
January, 1889. at least four other bills were
introduced in Congress, which were in sub
stance the same Senator Mahone's bill,
above referred to-. as they all looked to the
extension of the city over about the same
territory, and provided for condemnation
proceedings accordingly. Oh. r. ST43.
Forty ninth Congress first session; H. r.
1lO74, Forty-ninth Congress. second session;
H. r. 6l7O Ffftieth Congress. first session
Senate 302S, Fiftieth Congress, first ses-
sion)
lone of these bills Oh. r. 11O74. For
ty-ninth Congress. second SESSION. passed
the House of Representatives on the 14th
day of February, 1887. So far as we have
been able to learn, all the other bills which
we have enumerated failed to pass either
house of Congress.
1T was in this state of affairs that. as we
are informed. subcommittee of the Senate
District committee Senators Harris, Spoon
er and BarbOur) announced that the time
had come when 1t was essential that some
body should prepare and submit to Con-
gress general bill which should provide
once for all for the subject of street extern
sion in the District of Columbia, and relieve
Congress of the necessity of dealing with
particular streets and sections. Such bill
was prepared. by whom we have been I'M
able to ascertain, and was introduced in
the Senate by Senator Harris on the 10Th
day of January, 1889 Senate bill $3.50, Fiji
tieth Congress, second SESSION.. 1t con-
tanned several unconstitutional features and
was assailed in the newspapers at the time
for nat reason. Up to this time tue board
of trade had taken no action in the matter.
Bill Drawn.
1.-The District committees being thus over
whelmed by a multitude of insufficient and
contradictory bills, most Of which repre-
Sented private interests and not the public
welfare, the committee on streets and ave-
nues of the board of trade, after confer
ence with those congressional committees
employed counsel to draw a bill which
should meet the eXigency. During the
preparation of the board of trade bill there
were many conferences between the repre-
sentatives of the board and the members
of Congress in either house interested in
the question, and the BILL as finally pre-
pared and introduced in the Senate on
March b. 1890 SENATE bill 1882, Fifty-frst
Congress, first SESSION., embodied in a gen
crai way the result Of those conferences
From that date until March = 1898 the bill
was pending in both houses of Congress
and its passage was urged by many mem
bers Of both houses and by the District
Commissioners. Repealed public hea rings
were given, especially by the House com
mittee on the District, of Columbia. The
bill was amended from. time to time to suit
the views of committees having it in charge
or to overcome objections made to it. 1t
was at least twice published in full in the
newspapers of Nashington. There was nc
serious opposition TO it in the Senate at any
time, but in the House it was vigorously
opposed by minority Of that body, and the
debates upon the subject were fully repro
duced in the kewspapers. In a word, the
measure was. before the, people for three
years, and every one interested had an op-
portunity to express his views on it to Con-
gress. 'i'o ~
I'VE now proceed to the consideration of
certain objections that have been made to
the highway act aside from those which sc
to the validity of the act OF parts thereof
and which have been answered by the SUI
preme Court of the United States.
Il. 1t is said that the projected streets
constitute cloud on the titles of the land
over which they are laid out.
There seems to be an impression among
many OF our citizens that the owner of
land over which highway is projected on
the map Is in some way prevented from
using his land as he could before the map
was filed Legally there is no foundation
for this apprehension. The law is well set
tied, and the Supreme Court has announced
1t as to this very act, that until condemna-
ton proceedings have actually been begun
the owner Of lands through which the
streets are to run has precisely the same
rights in it that he would have if the map
had no existence He may if he choose
build houses in the line of the projected
highway, and claim full compensation Coz
them when the land is condemned. The
whole effect of the map is to let it be
known in advance of the actual condemna-
ton of the land and the opening of the
street where the highway will go when ii is
opened. Till the condemnation proceedings
are begun the authorities may not refuse
the grant of permit for the erection of
any building or interfere with any other
lawful use of the property. Although this
is perfectly clear on principle, we have
thought best to recommend that in amend
ing the law it be explicitly stated that af-
ter the filing of the map. as well as before.
the owners Of land affected shall have the
free use thereof until condemnation pro-
ceedingS are instituted.
But it is said that although this is the
law, yet as a matter of fact there is great
difficulty in making loans on real estate
over which these highways are laid out or
in making sales thereof. So far as our in
formation goes this applies principally to
land within recorded subdivisions which
are changed by the map, and in all such
cases and for this reason. among others,
the highway act requires that within thirty
days after any map shall have been filed
condemnation proceedings shall be insti-
tuted as to all the land in any existing SUBJ
divisions which it is proposed to take or to