The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1899-02-25
NO RIGHT TO CLOSE
THE CADETS ARhORY
The Hall Used by Colored Mil
tia to Be Reopened.
The Commissioners Rescind Their
PrOhibitOry Order.
The Police should Stop DisordcrIy
Gnthcrings-An Opinion From
Attorney s. Y. Thomas.

S. T. Thomas, Attorney for the Dis
trict handed down an opinion yesterday TO
the effect that the District Commissioners
should reseind the order issued during De-
tober last. prohibiting entertainments in
the Cadets Armory Hall, in o Street
northwest The opinion is of considerable
interest 10 local property owners. II holds
that the reasonable enjoyment of ones
real estate is a vested right which cannot
be interfered with or restricted, except as
! may be required by the reasonable de-
/ mands of trade, commerce, OF the common
interests of society. The order which
prohibited entertainments in the hall was
accordingly rescinded yesterday. 1t had
| been in force since October -, 1898, and
was intended to prevent noisy assemb!ages
! in the hall. against which numerous COM
plants had been made by people residing
| in that vicinity.
The final grievance against the alleged
| source Of nuisance was a murder COM
mitted within astone's throw of the
| Armory Hall, one night in October last,
| Immediately after dance in the hall.
! The quarrel, which resulted in the crime
occurred in the Armory. II was after this
| that the Commissioners decided 10 take
| radical action and the order withholding
/ the hall was a source of satisfaction 10
| residents in-the- neighborhood and n letter
( OF thanks, signed by a number of property
| owners and citizens, was received by the
| Commissioners. The communication de-
clared that the entertainments given in the
hall had been making night hideous and
sleep impossible, and that the people who
! attended the entertainments were also
menace TO peace and order.
Thus the matter rested until the first
part OF the present month, when Messrs.
E. II. Thomas and W E. Jones, attorneys
for Frank P Nash, the owner of Armory
| Hall. submitted a lengthy brief and argu-
ment 10 the Commissioners in support of
their application for the abrogation of the
order of October %, 1893. This argument
| covered eleven typewriter pages and
gave numerous reasons why, in the opin-
| ion OF the attorneys the hall should not
be closed and the rights of its owner re-
stricted 1t was explained that since the
erection of the building in 1888 it had been
used continually by the colored people of
the District for entertainments for the
benefit of their churches, and for social
gatherings. The argument continued as
| follows:
This dedication and the quartering Of the color
ed militia on the next lower floor has untitled
| il for any other use, and makes it impossible TO
| rent IL to any but cOlored people, as has been
demonstrated by diigent effort since your order.
Mr. NASH derived income Of abou, 5000 per an
mum from this hall, and this income has been
totally destroyed by the order Official action,
| sudden, without warning and without hearing
should Is, h,45tatiHgly taken in such case, even
II lustIfable, but where unIustitiabe and unlaw-
iul as ii j. here. such action is nCH-excus9ble
IL j. believed that there is 10 warrant in law
whatever Tor the action OF the Commissioners in
! deprivinG Mr.. Nash Of his property, and in
practically c0nfscating il without due process
! OF law by prohibiting its lawful use, what
L..
or undesirability of permitting colored people 10
meet and have their entertainments At this place
without authority either under the license acf.
| or the pohce regulations But if authority
E!bie. Tue owner OF the property has been de.
| prived OF 4 valuable right without a hearing and
without notice or intimation that any cause OF
| complaint existed. 1t be shown that the
| this place have been generally exaggerated, and
| that the character of the assembllgcs have been
pronounced wholly disordcrly without foundation
| when the contrary, these arrests are the ey
| ception and not the rule.
This argument was referred by the Dis
trict Commissioners to their legal adviser.
S T. Thomas His opinion, given yester-
day. was as follows
| The object of the order in question was doubt
less 10 prevent noisy and perhaps disorderly as
scmblages al ArTnorr Hall. There had no doubt
| been complaints by residents nearby that TIN
| place WAS nuisance, mad the idea Was 10 abat,
q nuisance" But this cannot he done by depriv
ing Mr.. Nash OF the OF his property. Will,
the use of property may be regulated this doc
not mean that the owner be deprived Of the
use OF his property.
The reasonable enjoyment Of ones real estat,
is vested right and cannot be limited TIL,
effect OF the order complained Of being 10 deprive
Mr.. Nash OF the US Of his property, my opinion
is IL should be rescind6d. II the asscmblagey al
hnnory Hall noisy disOrderly the polio,
2 should intervene and maintain order.