Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-01-03
REVERSED THE DECISION
Van Riswick Heirs Case Against the Rock
Greek Commission,
Opinion of the United States Supreme
o""rt IMPOSED to That of the Dis
trict Court Of Appeals.

In the Supreme Court of the United States
'ooay Justice Shiras delivered the opinion
OF the court IN the case of VIM. p. CraiyhIll
ana otners the commission to select the
iahd lor ROCK Creek Park, appellant agt.
AVarilla Lambert and others. The case
came 10 the Supreme Court from the Court
OF Appeals of the District of Columbia
Inc opinion rec.tes that in January, 1895.
Mary Van Riswck. widow, and Avarilla
Lambert and Martina Carr, children and
heirs of John Van Riswick, deceased. filed
bill of complaint in the Supreme Court of
the District of Columbia against the CON-
mission under the Rock Creek Park act of
September 81 1880, seeking to restrain the
said commission from assessing lands of
the compartments for any portion of the
cost and expenses of locating and improv-
ing the Rock Creek Park, for the alleged
reason that the sixth section of the said
act, under which the commission was act
ing. In proposing to make such assessment
was unconstitutional and void.
The cause was so proceeded in that on
September 60 1885, the Supreme Court oc
the District of Columbia rendered a final
decree as prayed for i'm the BILL From that
decree an appeal was taken to the Court
OF Appeals of the District OF Columbia
and by that court on March IL, 1896 tn.
decree OF the Supreme Court of the Dis.
tr!ct was affirmed. The cause was then
brought to the Supreme Court of tho
United States on appeal In his opinion
Justice Shiras concludes as follows:
Having reached the conclusion. then.
that the sixth section of the Rock Gre elk
Park act is not invalid for want of con-
fo rmity to constitutional principles we
think it follows that the DEGREES oil the
courts below should be reversed and the
bill of complaint be dismissed.
The other objections, forciby dwelt
on. are all questions of construction AMI
administration. and should be permitted
to arise and be determined in the regular
procedure OF the court to which Congress
has assigned the duty of carrying the pro-
visions of the act into effect.
1T may turn out that the practical difii-
cTities anticipated may disappear when
dealt with by that court to which power is
given to hear and determine all matters
connected with said assess sment and to re-
vise, amend and conform said assessment
in whole or in part, or order a new assess
ment 1t does not appear that these ap-
pellees will, when final action shall have
been taken have any substantial grounds
of complaint.
The difficulties of constituting the act are
not necessarily in the act itself, but In its
application to the subject matter Its pro
visions are somewhat vague and obscure.
and 1t is possible that further Legislation
may be found requisite to carry out the
Intentions of Congress. But such ques-
uons are not before us fer determine ton.
Should errors supervepe in the administra-
toh Vi t'e dtl, par VIII nave
redress by appeal
I'VE adopt the observation made in the
dissenting opinion in the court of appeals:
There can be no reason or pronriety
in appealing to a court of equity to re-
strain proceedings that are being conducted
in other courts competent to construe the
statutes under which they act, and to
decide every question that may arise in
the course of the proceeding. To allow
litigations to be diverted tends to the mul-
tipcation of litigation. and the produc-
tion of unnecessary delay and expense-to
say nothing of the unnecessary vexation
to parties
The decree of the Court of Appeals is
reversed and the cause is remanded to
the Supreme Court of the District with di-
rections to said court to reverse its de-
cree and dismiss the bill of complaint"