The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-09-29

| ticaily identical with the act for the eX-
| tension of S Street. In order to prevent
the cessation of all further proceedings
| for street extensions until the determine
| ton OF the appeal in this case and in
order to meet the objections suggested
by the Court of Appeals. Congress, by an
act entitled IAN act for the extension of
Columbia Road and for other purposes, -
approved June 6, 1900. directed the Com
missioners to take proceedings for the
extension of Columbia Road; said act
provides in detail mode of procedure
and directs the jury TO assess actual bene-
fits against any and all pieces or parcels
of land which they may find will be bene-
fitted by the extension. Proceedings I'M
der the several acts of Congress passed
at its last session for the extension of
streets were directed by the act of June
6. 1900. TO be taken in accordance with
its provisions; and accordingly, proceed
ings for several street extensions have
been taken and prosecuted as hereinafter
stated.
The Smoke Nuisance.
''W. n. Moses, ct al, VS.. United States,
decided May 5. 1900. was a writ of error
to the Police Court to review its Judgment
of conviction under the so-called smoke
law. This was a test case conducted
by the United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia, inasmuch as the act
of Congress does not provide that prose-
cutions for its violation shall be con-
Quoted by the Attorney for the District.
The act of Congress, entitled An act for
the prevention of smoke in the District
of Columbia and for other purposes APP
proved February 2. 1899 $50 Stats. S12),
declares that the emission of dense or
thick black or grey smoke or cinders from
any smoke-stack or chimney used in con-
neetion with any stationary engine or
steam boiler or furnace of any description
within the District of Columbia, public
nuisance. The act was assailed as uncon-
stitutional. The court held that it was
competent for Congress, in the exercise
of its power. to enact regulations affect
ing the public peace, morals, health, or
comfort within the District. to declare
the emission of dense black or grey smoke
from smoke-stacks or chimneys to be a
nuisance and punishable as an offence;
that the act was not void because of the
proviso, excluding from its application
chimneys or buildings used exclusively
for private residences, nor because of the
limitation of the prohibited smoke to its
emission from smoke-stacks or chimneys
used in connection with stationary en-
gines, steam boilers, or furnaces that il
constituted no defence to a prosecution
for violation of the act that the defendant
had attached TO their furnace the best
known smoke consuming appliance and
that neither it nor any ether well-known
make would prevent the emission of such
smoke for brief period while the fire
was being started, provided soft coal was
the fuel used; that what constitutes a
public nuisance under the statute was
primarily for Congress to determine and
lastly a question of law for the court;
and, therefore, questions calling for the
opinions of witnesses as TO whether the
smoke was dangerous to health, life or
property, or constituted public nuisance,
were properly excluded; that 1t was no
defence to the prosecution that neighbor-
ing occupiers had not sustained injury to
property or health therefrom, nor that
the smoke was not constantly emitted,
but only at intervals from day to day
UNLESS it was the purpose of Congress
by this act TO prohibit the use of soft or
bituminous coal in stationary engines.
steam boilers. or furnaces of any descrip-
ton within the District. it seems TO me
the law should be amended. In the nature
of the case 1t is impossible 10 use soft or
bituminous coal without emitting to some
extent and degree the smoke described in
the act.
Judgments in certiorari have been en-
tered in five cases quashing assessments
FOR taxes because illegally assessed. De-
crees have been entered in five cases,
canceling taxes more than twenty years
old, and relieving the property from the
cloud on the title of such taxes.
DEGREES in Equity following Brewer
vs. District of Columbia, 5 Mack. 274)
have been entered in forty-six cases in
- hoId ~ 20
taxes assessed prior to the date OF the
tax sales, in pursuance to which tax deeds
were issued; the present law relating to
tax sales approved February rs, 1898,
contains a provision designed to prevent
ouch loss OF revenue requiring the pur-
chaser at tax sale to pay the antecedent
unpaid taxes.
proceedings in street extension
cases have been taken in the Supreme
Court Of the District OF Columbia, hold
ing District Court in nine cases.
There we're 2f7 lunacy proceedings in
stituted by or in behalf of the Commits
sioners.
The District Code.
Our Just expectation in relation to the
code of laws for the District of Columbia
has as yet failed of realization. The code
prepared by Mr.. Justice Cox, and approved
by the Bar Association and the Board of
Trade. was passed with slight amendment
by the House Of Representatives. May Is
1900. and is now pending before the Com
mittee of the District of Columbia Of the
81 nate.
THE Commissioners have always appre-
dated the necessity Of the passage of ths
eide. and should not now abate any effort
In that direction.
The code, as prepared. does not embrace
any part Of the municipal law, but relates
entirely to general Law and procedure. A
cod'fcation Of the laws Of the District OF
Columbia will be incomplete until we have
a municipal code. embracing the ordinances
of the late corporations OF the cities of
Washington and Georgetown and Levy
Court. the acts of the late Legislative AS
sembly and the police, health etc, regu-
lations, made by the Commissioners under
authority of Congress. These ordinances
are printed in separate books and pam
phlets. some OF which are OUT OF print and
cessible-presenting a condition Of ef-
fairs unworthy Of the National Capital;
laws and ordinances relating to municipal
obligations should at least be known by
the citizen DESTROYS of performing his mu-
nieipal duty.
at is to be regretted that the decision
Of the Supreme Court Of the United States
in the Potomac Flats case did not finally
dispose Of the matter Of the river front
so as to enable the Commissioners TO carry
into effect the act OF Congress relative to
the control of wharf property, etc, ap-
proved March 3. 1888. and thus efectuate
the much needed improvement OF our wa
Ter front.
Il again call attention to the act of
Congress approved January 81, 1899, under
the provisions Of which INDECENT insane
persons and insane persons with hon.