The evening times., 1900-01-03
TO REVISE THE SNOW Law
The Existing Regulations Held 70
BE Crude and Defective.
Congress VIII BE Called Upon by the
District Commissioners TO Enact
More Effective Measure Police
Court Convictions Fail 10 Hold
Good Before Higher Tribunal.

Among the many District matters that
will be brought TO the attention OF Congress
during the present session, none viii be
OF greater local interest than the revision of
the snow law that is contemplated by the
Commissioners. The regulations which the
lawmakers Will be called upon to amend
are those passed on March > 1875, and on
March ,. 1897. embodied in what is known
as the snow and ice law OF the District
These acts provide that the tenant, owner,
~y agent of a piece of property within the
~ limits are responsible for the removal
o. any snow or ice that may fall or form
on the pavements in front of their premises.
The removal must be accomplished within
the first four hours of daylight after the
fall of snow or the forming OF the ice.
The failure OF the tenant owner, or agent
OF the house houses. or lot to remove the
snow or ice is made punishable by fine
in the Police Court. and il the refusal of
responsible parties is persistent, the Com
miSsioners are empowered to cause the en-
cumbrance 10 be removed and to charge the
cost OF the removal to owner Of the place.
10 be collected as a regular tax against the
property with the annual taxes.
The bill also provides that in case the
Zee was so formed that it could not be re-
moved, sawdust or some such substance
was TO be sprinkled over the street TO pre-
vent pedestrians from slipping
Several violations of this law were noted
hast winter, and the agents of the property
were brought into the Police Court TO
answer the charge OF failure TO remove the
SNOW. They were convicted by the police
Judge but they appealed 10 the District
Court of Appeals and a short time after
ward decision was handed down reyers-
ing the decision OF the Police COurr. The
decision OF this court was without criti-
eism. except 10 point out where the Law
was defective. In rendering the decision
Justice Morris said:
Ii is not often that in SO short a statute
this there are found - many Crudities and ncou-
sistencies and we cannot hut suppose thar Con-
Eross has been led into its enactment without
due consideration, IN reliance upon It's promoters
anu upon the good purpose which IL was evidently
intended 10 suhseNe
The whole act is open 10 the grave objection
that II is unequal in its operation, tails TO reach
nonresident owners Of vacant land Unoccupicd
property. and makes provision for the removal
Of snow Ice from the sidewalks in front Cf
the squares and open places and other property
Of the United States for which some such pro
vision Is much required. for the purposes OF
Tie act ss FOR the sidewalks ia front at private
property.
1t heug very apparent to Us thai the plain
tIts in rIOr not within the par, spN ai the
act ot Congress in question and that Do respect
az The several pieces Of land mentioned I'm the
fnfoIInstols, they arS not ameHsble io the pen
atlcs of the act, 10 Is unnecessary lUr rs 10 py-
press any opinion on the broader question Of the
const ionaHty oi the enactment ~ to those
TO whom The pryNlslons OF the act might he held
properly 20 apply
Ne prefer to Wait until a case arises in which
the Denomination Of that question becomes uecrS
saIf- especially IN New Of the fact that the
em' lgenrr 10 which the statute relates Is hot
llkeiF 10 arse again Tor many months and il NAV
be deemed oHpediont by those having such mat
tiers IN charge TO apply 10 Congress for
additional legislation 10 remove the iueanaIirics
sho 10 correct The lHhnities OF the existing
statute.
The principal trouble with the bill ac-
cording TO The statements Of several per
sons interested is that it is MOI explicit
as TO who shall be held responsible. Almost
every piece of property In the city has 4
tenant CT owner or agent. and the law does
not say whether all or only one of these
shall be amenable 10 the charge. In eases Of
vacant lots, where there is only an owner
and an agent the Law does NOT state which
is 10 be held responsible. except wherein il
provides that the cost OF the removal. il
done by he District shall be charged m
the property as a regular tax In this
event not only vacant lots. bur improved
property as well viii be charge4ble only 10
the owner
The cases which were presented to The
Police Court last year were against the
agents OF unimproved property. and the
agents protested that they were not re-
sponsible and could not be fined
Another difficulty encountered in the en-
forcement OF The law is the lack OF funds
with which to comply with the provisions
Of the act in removing snow from premises
the owners of which have refused 10 COM
ply with the law. Last year The Commits
sioners had an appropriation which was
available for this purpose, but il will not
happen SO again, they claim. and this year
there Is no fund which can be drawn uuon
for the npcneear.,. finds