Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-09-28


Tax Deeds and Street Extensions.
DEGREES In equity following Brewer agt.
District OF Columbia, Mack. 27D were
entered in forty-six cases in favor Of hold
ers OF tax deeds canceling taxes assessed
prior to the date Of the tax sales. in pursuance
to which tax deeds were Issued. The pres
ent law relating to tax sales. says Mr.. Du-
vail. approved February %, 1898. contains
a provision designed to prevent such loss
Of revenue requiring the purchaser at tax
sale to pay the antecedent unpaid taxes.
Proceedings in the street extension cases
are thus summarized. Twentieth street,
81, 900 damages, one-half, assessed on ada
cent property; widening Of 10Th street,
$64, 900 damages. One-hah assessed on adj
jacent property: extension Of s, 22d and
Decatur streets $4,000 damages, one-half
| assessed on adjacent property: Rhode Island
| avenue, $96,6l7 damages, one-half assessed
on adjacent property; nth street, $269, 120
damages, one-half rassessed on adjacent
property; Sherman Avenue, S7,293.5O one
half assessed on adjacent property; New
Hampshire avenue, 500, 1916 damages one
half assessed on adjacent property. These are
| the only cases in which the juries filed YER
diets during the past fiscal year. The total
amount of damages was 1866, 800 46, one-half
Of which, $333. 411.23. was assessed by the
respective juries on the adjacent property.
Cases in Which Dihtrict rs Interested.
Mr.. Duva1l enun1er ates~the cases decided
trtct was a party. stating that in that of
the Mutual District Messenger Company
against the Commissioners. relative to over
head wires an unsuccessful effort was
made to obtain from the court opinion
defining the extent of the authority of
the Commissioners in respect to overhead
wires outside the limits OF the city of
Washington. The court affirmed the judg-
nlent below on the ground that Eandamus
would only lie where there was no other
legal remedy to compel performance of
positive duty to or on behalf of the party
seeking the remedy; and that when called
upon for license relating to the public
roads the Commissioners must determine
the extent Of their authority by the con-
struction Of the statutory provisions re-
lating thereto. and their duty in this re-
spect involved the exercise of such dis
erection and judgment as rendered man
damus inapplicable.
In Loeffier against the District where the
Police Court convicted Loeff1er for selling
liquor to a minor, the appellate tribunal re-
versed the judgment of conviction and held
that the party charged with such an of
Tense must have knowledge himself or by
his agent acting for him In selling to the
minor, that the party to whom the liquor
was sold at the time minor under
the age Of twenty-one years
Another interesting case decided by the
Court Of Appeals, he says, was that of
Stoutenburgh against Frazier. wherein the
court declared that the provisions OF the
act OF Congress Of July 8. 1898. declaring
that suspicious persons" may be arrested
and prosecuted as criminals. and upon con-
vIcton be confined and imprisoned. was
nugatory and without effect. inasmueh as
the charge of being suspicious person
was without any relation whatever to crime
committed in the past or crime intended to
be committed in the future.
Referring to the action of the Court or
Appeals in holding the smoke law to be
valid Mr.. Duvall says:
.JTnless 1t 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 description
within the District: 1t seems to me the law
should be amended. In the nature Of the
case 1t Is Impossible to use soft or blum
inous coal without emitting to some extent
and degree the smoke described In the act.
New Code of Laws.
s.Our lust expectation" says Mr.. Duvall,
sin relation to the code Of laws for the
District of Columbia has as yet failed OF
realization. The code prepared by Mr. JUS
tice Cox. and approved by the Bar Asso-
citation and the board Of trade, was passed
with slight amendment by the House OF
Representatives May 3d. 1900 and Is now
pending before the committee Of the Dis
trict Of Columbia Of the Senate
1.-The Commissioners have always appre-
ciated the necessity of the passage of the
code, and should not now abate any effort
in that direction.
1.-The code, as prepared does not embrace
A ''i c coz Of the laws Of the
District Of Columbia will be- be in com
embracing the ordinances Of the late
corporations of the cities of Washington
and Georgetown and levy court. the acts
of the late legislative assembly the
police. health; ETC.; regulations, made by
the Commissioners under authority Of Con-
gress. These ordinances are printed in
separate books and pamphlets. some of
which out of print and inaccessible,
presenting a condition If affairs unworthy
of the national capital Laws and ordi-
nances relating to,smunicipal obligations
should at least be knowp by the citizen de-
sirous of performing his municipal duty.
Cause for Regret.
Mr.. Duvall says 1t is to be regretted that
the decision of the Supreme Court Of the
United States in the Potomac fats case
did not finally dispose of the matter of the
river front, SO as to enable the Commission
relative to the control Of wharf prop
erty," etc, approved March g. 1899, and
thus effectuate the much-needed improve
ment OF our water front. In a most elab-
crate opinion the Supreme Court held Ola
u. S.. 1850 that the owners of lots in squares
on the line of Water street In the city of
Washington were not entitled to riparian
rights or to rights Of private property in
the waters or reclaimed lands between
Water street and the channel OF the Po-
tomac river; that the Intention never de-
parted from since the first conception Of
the city, was to establish such q street
along the water front for the common ac-
cess thereto: and that the failure to con-
struct and open Water street between 1874