Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-07-02
PLEA FOR A MANDAMUS
Effort to Compel the Issuance Of Build
ing Permit.
Mr.. Bliss Takes His Case Into Court
Construction of Building Regu-
latfons fn Question.

The hearing on the application for man.
damus filed by Alonzo o. Bliss, to compel
| the District Commissioners to issue to the
comp lainant a permit for family hotel
| building on 10Th street between X and l.
| streets, began in Circuit Court No. this
| morning at 10 o'clock, Eefore Justice Cole.
Mr. Bliss was represented by Mr.. A. S.
Worthington, while the Commissioners
were represented by Mr.. S. T. Thomas, at
| torney for the District, and Mr.. A B. Du-
vail, his assistant.
| Mr.. Bliss seeks a permit for construction
of building on 10th street, to be ITO feet
| in height. The permit as refused on thu
grounds that 10th street is a residence
| thoroughfare and that the building regula-
| tons do not allow an excess of 80 feet in
| height on such streets. The height of build
| ings is governed by section 40 of the regu-
| lations, which provides that in no case shall
| a building exceed 30 feet in height on
residence street, nor ITO feet on business
street, except on avenues 160 feet wide.
where height not exceeding 100 fact may
| be allowed when the lot is of sufficient
| frontage and depth, in the judgment of the
Commissioners. to justify the same.
In the petition for mandamus it iE urged
| that the exceptIt n as to avenues 100 feet
wide applies to reSideLce as well as bus
| tuess streets. and that as 10th street Is 1G0
| feet wide the Commissc ners are violating
their own law In no. issuing permit for
a height Of Ito feet at that point. The con-
| tention is that the word avenues applies
| to all streets. and that Mr.. Bliss lot is ad-
mftted to be Of sufficient frontage and
depth to justify the erection of the 110-fcor
| building. Justice Cole allowed the first
contention that avenues applies to all
| streets OF the city.
Answer of the Commissioners.
Attorney Thomas read the answer of the
Commissioners to the compliments petit
| ton, which consisted of three sworn state
ments The first affidavit, that of the Com
| missioners, denies that the word avenues
In the regulatio1 applies to 10th street, as
| 1t is a residence street. The Commissioners
further aver that buildings of the charac-
ter proposed to be erected in this case are
proper subjects of regulation as to their
height; that in any such building above
| eight stories Qhe proposed Bliss building
| Is to be nine stories) it Is impossible for
hremen to extinguish fires; that necessar-
| lily In the construction Of such buildings
they are sneatl ed with O thin masonry,
and in case of fire on either side the ma
scnry would part and fall away, leaving
| tho steel and ironwork exposed, to be fused
and warped by heat, resulting In the whole
building being thrown down; that such
buildings. SO far as danger to life and limb
by fire Is concerned. are but tall chimneys;
that they obstruct the light and ventilation
of adjoining buildings. and materially in
| terfere with the draft Of the chimneys OF
said buildings.
The affidavit OF Mr.. Ashford, assistant
inspector of buildings, points out the dam
ger of high buildings Of steel construction.
The third statement is from Chief Paris
of the fire department, who points out the
difficulty of extinguishng a blaze in
eighth story, and declares that the longest
| ladder in the Washington fire department
| is eighty-five feet, or sufficient only to
reach a seventh story. Chief Paris
| lates his experience with the patent office
6rn .
| Of the Capital Traction Company's power
house. in which, when the iron beams hold
Ing the floors became heated. they twisted
| and threw down the walls. The disposition
of iron and steel construction in buildings
| is to collapse under the influence of fire,
and to force out the walls, which greatly
imperils the lives of firemen and the safety
of adjoining buildings.
Mr.. WOrthinSton's Rejoinder.
Mr.. Worthington declared that the Com
| missioners had not answered the single
point made in the petition Of mandamus,
which was the construction of their regu-
lation as to 160-foot avenues; whether 1t
applied to residence as well as business
streets. He was not controverting at this
time the reasonableness of the regulation.
but he believed 1t might be successfully at
| tackled. What the Commissioners said re-
garding fire in an eighth story applied
to any building of that height, whether
and to set 1t up as a claim in this case
was to admit that they had framed a dam
gerous regulation.
The question at issue in the case and the
only one, was whether or not the excep-
ton allowing buildings over ninety feet
high On avenues applied alike to residence
and business streets. The petitioners claim
that it does.
Attorney Thomas spoke on the reason
| ableness of the height-limiting regulation.
saying that such laws were in force in all
the large cities. The regulation was
brought about by the sky-scraper craze be-
gun with the erection of the Cairo.
Mr.. Duvall argued that the distinction be-
tween business and residence streets was
intended to extend throughout the regula-
ton, and that it was intended that no resi-
dence street should have a building over
ninety feet high no matter what the width
Of the street might be.
The Decision Deferred.
Justice Cole stated at IL o'clock that he
would be unable to decide the case today,
and that as he was about to leave the city