The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-27
DENOUNCED BY Mr.. ALLEN
The Senator Criticises a Local
Street Extension Bill.
He Declares 1t to BE Unconstitu-
tiOnal and Designed to Rob the
Property HOlders-The Methods of
Condemnation of Land Unjust-Mr.
Mcmillan Defends the Measure.

In the Senate yesterday, during the con
sideration of legislation affecting the Dis
trict. Mr.. Allen opposed for two hour!
the bill providing for the extension o
Columbia Road. and in an address. statet
that the measure was drawn up for thu
purpose of cheating property holders. ant
was both unjust and unconstitutional The
bill was finally passed.
Mr. Allen objected to the second section
of the bill, which relates to the condemna-
tion of the land intended to be used in the
extension. He spoke at length ON the
wrong done property holders under the law
and said that condemnation proceedings
were not fair.
The bill provides: That within twenty
days after the passage of this act the Com
missioners of the District of Columbia be
and they are hereby, authorized and directed
to institute in the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia, sitting as district
court. by petition;- particularly describing
to condemn the land that may be necessary
|
Of Thirteenth Street, through block twenty
three of Columbia Heights. with width
of sixty feet SO that the western terminus
of Steuben Street, will be connected in a
| direct manner with the eastern terminus
Of Columbia Road as now located west of
Thirteenth Street.
The bill and amendments were framed
| by the Attorney for the District of Column
| bia. r
Mr.. Mcmillan defended the bill, arguing
that the-jury would make fair ruling as
to payment. He stated that he desired to
see the District OF Columbia improved in
every way, and wanted to see the streets
| opened. 5
Mr.. Allen asked If Mr.. Mcmillan would
withdraw the second section of the bill
Il will not" said Mr. Mcmillan
NO" said Mr. Allen. you want to take
a mans property that is worth $1,000 ard.
after condemning it, will give him 500
for it as a benefit, as provided in this bill. ="
Mr.. Gallinger stated that all improve
ments made in the District of Columbia
heretofore had been made through the
same condemnation proceedings.
There are large number of unjust
statutes in effect in the District of CO.
lumbia.' said Mr.. Allen, 81 know of half
dozen of them"
Mr. Stewart stated that never in any
case had jury awarded property owner
less than the value of his property.
Mr.. Allen stated that he had heard that
it was a custom in the District of Column
bia for men to go out into the outskirts of
the city and after buying a piece of land
would have bill passed extending a
street across this property and thus reap
a harvest.
The section relating to condemnation is
as follows:
THAT of the amount found to be due
and awarded as damages for and in respect
of the land condemned for the extension
OF Columbia Road as herein provided, such
amount thereof shall be assessed by the
jury hereinafter provided as benefits. ard
to the extent of such benefits, against
those pieces or parcels of land on each side
of said Columbia Road as extended through
block 20 of Columbia Heights, and also
on any or all pieces or parcels of land
which will be benefited by the extension
of said Columbia Road as said jury may
find said pieces or parcels of land will be
benefited; and in determining the amounts
to be assessed against said pieces or par
cells of land the jury shall take into con-
sideration the respective situations of such
pieces or parcels OF land and the benefits
they may severally receive from the ex-
tension of Columbia Road as aforesaid:
Provided, that If the aggregate amount OF !
the benefits to be assessed as determined
by said jYry pursuant TO the provisions |
hereof, is less than one-half of the amount |
of the damages awarded for and in re- |
spect of the land condemned. the Commits
sioners of the District of Columbia NAV. |
in their discretion. within thirty DAYS after /
the filing of said award, reject the award |
ceedings hereunder shall be null and void"
Mr.. Allen held that'this was a wrong and /
monstrous proposition And was gotten up |
by the chairman Ofithe, committee (Mr Nc |
Millan) not because he, wanted 1t, but to |
while away the time of the Senate and rob
the poor people of the District of Columbia.
IF there ever was slpshod proposition
10 rob property holders" said he. this
section is one
Mr.. Allen then read the third section of
the bill, which provides that whenever, in
the judgment of the court it is practicable
to do so. a copy of the notice TO attend
court shall be served on such property
holders as may be found in the District OF
Here is nice trap" said he ''If you
AN get man out OF the District for an
lour you can seize his property by con-
ard need not serve any notice
lpon him unless You feel like it. This is
yet the Senator from
hlchgan states that III was drafted by a |
distinguished lawyer in the District of Co.
umbia. Not the slightest notice is required
Tor any sign of a summons. The jury NAV
'e summoned the proceeding had. and tie
whole matter settled before the property
older knows anything about it. And then
he latter has no power to do anything.
This bill also provides for a jury of
even men. Now. if you can do sway with
i've men on jury, for the law throughout
he United States is twelve men, why
ant you do away with six more of them
nd make one man the jury"
Mr.. Mcmillan held brief conference
Nth Mr.. Allen and then announced that
he object of Mr.. Aliens objection was to
ave the bill consolidating certain street
always in the District of Columbia, go
ack to the calendar.
This was agreed TO and the bill was pass
d.
---------------------