Evening star., 1900-05-02
Subjects Considered by the House
Committee Today.
FnE REGISTER OF WILLS OFFICE
Its Abolition Urged by Messrs.
Worthington and Perry.
THE CODE OF LAWS

The House committee on the District OF
Columbia held a very lively session this
morning. commencing soon after 10 o'clock.
with Chairman Babcock presiding.
A hearing was given by the committee on
the bill to annul the subdivision known as
Pencote Heights.
DR.. c, NJ, Emmons, representing the Con-
gress Heights Citizens Association, pro-
tested against the bill. He said that Pen
cote Heights and Wilson Park were one
and the same thing. although Pencote
Heights comprised thirty-five acres and
Wilson Park seventy acres. His objection
to the bill to annul the subdivision of Pen
cote Heights was that his property and the
property of others would be injured by
wiping out the subdivision. He said the
ground is not needed for the asylum He
said the Commissioners in recommending
the bill did not expect the subdivision would
be destroyed, but that a new subdivision
would be made.
If this park is wiped off the plat. DIR.
Emmons said the District would lose the
streets and the citizens of the vicinity would
suffer injury.
Mrs Eaton, who is property owner in
that section, followed in a protest against
the bill, making much the same argument
as DR.. Emmons. She said the property
owners were plain people, with no power,
and that they were being opposed by infiu-
entail interests.
ers purchased their property with the un-
derstanding that it was contiguous to
subdivision which would be improved and
add to the value Of their holdings. If this
subdivision is annuled their property will
be damaged.
Flour Inspection BILL
This closed the hearing upon this subject.
and the committee took up Senate bill 144S,
known as the flour inspection bill
MIR. Chas. Schneider opposed the bill. He
said that a law was passed in December,
1898. for the inspection of flour in the Dis
trict. This law, he said, is not protec-
ton to the consumer of flour, but. on the
contrary, it gives a license to defraud the
public.
Mr.. Jenkins said the committee was not
considering the present law but only the
pending bill, which proposes to inspect -four
in the sack well in the barrel.
We'll l only want to say that the whole
inspection is fraud said Mr.. Schneider.
The law being bad, he said, he did not want
it extended.
Mr.. L. S. Tyler said that bills are often
rendered for inspections which are not
made. He said it would be impossible TO
inspect each small sack. He said that local
dealers, after the first inspection,
blend the flour and impose the public.
Several members of the committee sug-
gested that the -four inspection law was
not under consideration. If the law was
being abused. let the flour dealers draw up
an amendment TO cure the evils of which
they complain.
The bill before the committee Is. 1919
provides follows;
That section of the act, entitled An
act regulating the inspection of flour in
the District of Columbia approved Decem-
ber II. 1898, be amended by striking out
the last clause of said section and inserting
in lieu thereof the following:
And no barrel, half barrel or sack of
flour not examined and branded by the in
spector as aforesaid shall be sold within
GGt ri. &c for nnpL Il
every barrel half barrel sack, to be
collected as other fines and penalties are
collected "
Mr. ]. A Weiman said that one of his
customers uses a carload of flour each
month. The inspector wanted to be paid
Tor inspecting the whole car. but did not
propose to inspect each barrel.
Chairman Babcock said that the flour
dealers should get together and draw up
bill to cover the whole case, and the COM
mittee wouIu consider it.
Mr.. Schneider said the present law oper-
ates to give two or three -four dealers a
monopoly of the whole business.
New Code of Laws.
Mr.. A. S. Worthington and Mr.. R. Ross
Perry appeared before the committee in
connection with the committee amendment
to the new code. which strikes out the sec
ton abolishing the office of register of wills
He said the Bar Association of the District
had desired for years the abOlShing of the
office, and all the judges wanted the same
action
Mr.. Worthington said that the only per-
son who wants the office maintained is the
recently appointed register of Wills Mr.
Worthington said he had recently received
an anonymous printed communica ton
which was a cowardly attack on the judges
of the courts and on Mr.. McGiIl, the former
register of wills.
Mr.. Worthington said that when the code
was prepared and the section was put in
abolishing the Office of register of wills the
"a rnla in
a hearing to the register of Wills After
ward the committee unanimously decided
| to retain the section, abolshing the office.
He said that the Bar Association commit
tee was very much surprised when it
found that the District committee had
stricken out the provision.
Chairman Babcock's Statement.
At this point Chairman Babcock inter-
rupted to say that the District committee
desired to have the code passed He for
one would refuse to vote for the code IL
it made any change in the salary or status
of office holders, because he realized that
as soon as this was undertaken there
would be trouble.
Mr.. r. Ross Perry explained to the law
yers on the committee the practice in the
register of wills office. Mr.. Perry said
that those who prepared this code, trying
to give the capital of the nation at the end
OF this century the best law to be OBJ
tained did not suppose that personal infu-
ence could affect any part Of it, They did
not suppose that ii subordinate official
could by personal influence change legisla-
ton in the code.
Chairman Babcock said that the remark
was an insult to the committee The COM
mittee had acted in Its best Judgment.
Mr.. Perry disclaimed any intention to af-
front the committee. Mr. Perry continu-
ing, explained the technical legal anomalies
of the present state, and which, he said,
induced the trainers of the code to recon-
mend the change.