The times., 1898-09-23
Mr.. Thomas Submits a Review
of the Years Work.
TAXING THE BANK STOCK
Nathaniel Wilson, I'm Behalf of the
National Banks, Granted Hear
The Losses of Revenue to the
City Pointed out-other News.

port to the District Commissioners. IL
enumerates the various suits and cases
which were brought against the District
OF Columbia during the fiscal year end
ing June so last, and contains numerous
suggestions of considerable importance TO
the community.
Among the suggestions offered is one
that the city ordinance against the vast
ing of Potomac water be extended over
the entire District.
Mr.. Thomas states that the laws of
the District regarding insurance remain
in the same condition as at the time of
his former report, and further that there
is no doubt in his mind that the law
needs reform, especially in regard to life
insurance on the assessment plan.
The report also contains a recommended
tion for action by Congress comforting
upon the Commissioners power to remit
fines. and to grant pardons for offenses
against all municipal laws and ordi-
nances.
In the opinion of the Districts legal ad-
wiser the act Of Congress of 1887, restrict
ing alien ownership of lands in the Dis
trict of Columbia. should be repealed.
The Report.
The report reads in part as follows:
There is but one District case pending
in the Supreme Court of the United
States. l refer to the case of Humphreys
VS.. District, on appeal from the judgment
of the Court of Appeals. In that case
Eliza beth NJ Humphreys. a child about
twelve years OF age, is alleged TO have
had one of her feet severely injured by
the careless operation of the draw in
Anacostia Bridge. She recovered a YER
dict of s7,090, which, being set aside by
the Court of Appeals, she appealed TO the
Supreme Court
The case of Bailey VS.. District has
been decided. 1t was an action TO re-
cover Sl0,5l9-20 on an alleged award. In
1879 the Commissioners gave a contract
to the Bailey-French Paving Company
for resurfacing, with asphalt certain
streets Of this city.
The agreement was in writing, and the
price of the work aggregated about SAL
600. In 1885, after about three-fourths of
the work had been done. and the con-
tractor had earned about s36, 600 including
S.. 7S4.ls for extra work, the Commission
ers notified him that no more work would
be done because the appropriation for it
was exhausted.
In 1888 Davis ". Bailey, alleging that
he was the Bailey-French Paving Com
Pany, sued the District to recover S25. .60l
damages, resulting in a verdict against
the District for Sl0. $500. with interest
from July is, 1852. A motion for a new
trial having been overruled. the District
took an appeal TO the Court of Appeals
and that court having affirmed the judg-
ment below, both parties prosecuted writs
OF error TO the Supreme Court where
the judgment of the Court of Appeals
was reversed with direction to the court
below to dismiss the action on the alleged
award
This case, aside from its money value
to the District. is important as estab-
fishing the principle contended for by
counsel for the municipality all through
the proceedings, that the Commissioners
in view of the provisions of the act OF
Congress of June II, 1873. were without
authority to submit claim against tht
District TO arbitration.
The Years Work
There were $50 official opinions giver
the Commissioners during the year, beine
an increase of thirteen over the previou:
year.
There are five District cases pending
in the Court of Appeals, viz, Robinson:
executors VS.. District; Crumbaugh anC
wife VS.. District; Hayes VS.. District
Mary J. Mcbride Us. District, and Demp
sey vs.. District
There are fifty-two cases against the
District pending on the law side of the
Supreme Court of the District of Column
bia- OF these twenty-three are OF the clas!
known as flood cases. growing out OF
the flooding of premises fronting Mis-
souri, Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue
during the rainy season Of 1883 The re
nlainder of the actions pending are gen
orally 70 recover damages for persona
injuries occasioned by defects in streets.
During the year OF this report twenty
two cases against the District. in the Su
preme Court of the District of Columbia
were tried or otherwise disposed of.
There were nineteen new action:
brought against the District during tn,
year. one being in trespass for alleged in
juries to real property, and eighteen wer,
10 recover damages for personal injurie:
received, because of alleged defect in this
streets and sidewalks of the city.
There were brought during the year
twenty-five suits in equity against tbs
District for the cancellation of arrears oi
general taxes, where tax deeds had beer
delivered. and relief was sought, under
the decision of the Supreme Court of the
District in Brewers case, that tax deed
made in pursuance of a sale for the
unpaid taxes of g certain year, passes the
property to the purchaser discharged o
the Hen of all taxes remaining due anC
unpaid at the time of the sale.
This annual loss in the revenues of tn,
District viii cease IN April 1899 Con
Eress, by act approved February IS, 1898
in relation to taxes and tax sales, having
enacted that no tax deed shall be issue(
until all assessments. taxes, costs. anC
charges due the District, Of whatever ma
ture shall have been paid in FULL
There were seven suits in equity fol
Injunction brought against the Commits
Eioners for relief.
Losses of Revenue.
THE Commissioners brought one sui
for mandatory Injunction 20 compel tht
removal of a fruit stand from the public
street at the entrance of the Geological
Park. The court granted the Injunction
and the defendant appealed to the Couri
Of Appeals.
There were ia cases in certiorari Il
uuash assessments for special improve.
ments OF these only four were brough
10 quash reassessments. In this connec
tion would suggest that the act of Con
gress of April p. 1896. authorizing reas
sessments in certain cases, perhaps. need.
amendment. Inat act PROVIDES Tor reaS
sessment In all cases where general take
or assessments for local Improvement.
may be quashed by the court by reasor
of an imperfect or erroneous description
of the lot, or because the tax or assess
rnent has not been authenticated by TIL
proper officer, or of a defective return o
service Of notice. or for any technical rea
son other than the right Of the public au
thorities TO levy the tax or make tn
Improvement in respect of which the as
sessment was levied TO reassess.