Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-07-11
TALL STRUCTURES
Decision Of ths Court Touching
Heights If Buildings.
COMMISSIONERS 2VIEW SUSTAINED
No Opinion Upon the Validity Of
Building Regulations.
TEXT OF TIE OPINION

The decision of Justice Cole Of Circuit
Court No /, in the case of Alonzo o. Bliss,
against the District Commissioners, has
| been received. The decision is most i'm
! portant one, affecting as it does the entire
| question Of tall buildings in the Capital
| city.
| 1.-THE petition in this case" says Justice
Cole, prays the writ of mandamus requir-
ing the respondents. the Commissioners Of
| the District Of Columbia, to issue a permit
| to the relator to construct an apartment
| house on 18th street northwest between K
| and streets of the height Of no feet
above the level Of the street, If the plans
| and specifications therefor shall be found
| H. all other particulars in substantial con-
| formity to the building regulations. The
relator claims the right to construct a
| building Of said height at said point under
| the provisions of the first paragraph of the
| 1crtieth section Of the building regulations,
which is in the following language:
| No building shall be erected or altered
On any street in the District of Columbia to
| exceed IN height above the sidewalk the
width OF the street in its front, and in no
| case snail a building exceed ninety feet in
Height on resident street nor 10 feet in
a business street, as defined in these regu-
| latlons except on avenues 16O feet wide,
where height not exceeding $50 feet may
| frontage and depth. in the judgment of the
Commissioners, to Justify the same.
| "A schedule Of what are to be considered
| business streets Is annexed and made part
OF the building regulations, and 18th street
| is not among them, and must be considered
q resident street within the meaning Of
those words as used in the said fortieth Sec
ton.
| the right of the relator to a permit to erect
a building ITO feet high at the place in
question, and contend that according to the
proper construction Of the fortieth section,
buildings OF greater height than ninety
feet are prohibited on resident street, and
that they denied the permit in this case on
| that grourd. The relator, on the contrary
maintains that the exception contained in
said section applies alike to resident and
| business streets, and that as the respond
ents make no objections to the proposed
height on he ground of the width or depth
of the Let on which he proposes to build, re
| is entitled to run his building to the height
| of ITO feet, or might go as high as 100 feet if
| he desires, 10th street is wider than the
| last mentit ned height. So that the real
controversy is whether the said exception
applies to the business streets only or the
resident streets as we'll.
The Word avenue"
at was suggested, rather than seriously
argued, on behalf of the respondents at
the hearing that as the word avenue and
not the word streets is used IN the excep-
ton, 1t does not apply to 10th street, as
that is not designated as an avenue, but
as a street the plat of the city. But
this position is clearly untenable. A famil-
lar construction of statutes Is that words
are to receive their ordinary, popular sig
MITIGATION unless there be something in the
context to indicate that they are used in a
more restricted or different sense
while there is a shade of difference IN
the definitions of streets and avenues as
given by the photographers in common par
lance, they are synonymous words, and in
stead OF the context indicating that the
word avenue is used here in its more re-
stricted sense, the use of the words streets
and avenues throughout the building regu-
lations shows that they used indiscrim-
inatey having the same meaning.
But there is another argument on be-
half of the respondents which is entitled to
more consideration. The first part of the
section preserves difference of 20 feet
in the maximum height of buildings on
business and residence streets, while the
exception. if it applies to both classes of
streets. does away with this distinction. 1t
Is quite apparent that there may be ade-
quate reasons for allowing buildings of
greater height on business than ON resi-
dence streets, but if the construction con-
tended for by the relator be adopted,
party would have the right to run a build
ing as high on a residence street as on a
business street, provided his lot was wide
and deep enough to justify it, While the
position of this exception in the context is
such that it would naturally apply to both
classes of streets, the court is unable to
say that the consideration above mention
ed Is without weight, and that the construc-
ton commended for, limiting the execution
to business streets is inadmissible
1T Is the well-settled doctrine of the Su-
preme Court that executive and ministerial
officers have discretion to exercise in con-
STRUNG statutes which they have to apply
and enforce in the discharge Of their duties
and that such discretion cannot be CONTROL
led by mandamus If the statute is fairly
open to construction, although the court
might not adopt the same Interpretation
that the officer complained of did The
question in such cases is not whether the
officer has adopted the construction which
the statute is susceptible of more than one
meaning, and whether the one adopted by
the executive officer is reasonable.
Another View of the Case.
There is another view of the case entitled
to consideration. Although it Is a rule
probably without exception in the construc-
ton of statutes that the opinions or decla-
rations of the individual members of the
legislative body, as to what was intended
by the language used, cannot be considered
in interpreting the law, still 1t is to be borne
in mind that-the same body which enacted
this regulation Is called upon to construe
1t in applying it, and two of the respond
ents are the same persons who formulated
and adopted the regulation under consider
alton. And while the respondents could not
De permitted TO ADOPT an unreasonable con-
struction to conStrue the same regula-
ton differently on different occasions. still
in this case, although the court should be
of opinion that the construction they have
adopted was inadmissible in view of the
language used, inasmuch as this seems to
be the first occasion they have had to con-
strue, 1t in this particular, even if it be adj
mitted that they have used language which
confers a right to construct building
higher than they intended on resident
streets, it may well be doubted whether
they now be compelled by mandamus
to permit what they, in their answer.
say they never intended, and what they
consider contraryo to public safety and
interests. It has never been understood
that the respondents exhausted their pow
er in that regard by making one set of reg
ulations. but that they might alter and
amend them at pleasure, and this has been
the practice.
IF, therefore. by an inadvertent use of
language they have seemingly permitted
the erection of g. building, which they be-
lieve to be against public interests, they
should be allowed to amend the regulation.
and not compelledsto enforce it.
1.-THE relator alleges that he has expend-
ed more than $4,000 in preparations to
erect this building on the faith of this reg
ulatfoD Rrf II fs NOT alleged or roroo;,,o,5