The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1900-01-03

Among the many District matters thar
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 >. 1895, 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.
ay agent OF a piece OF property within the
- limits are responsible for the removal
any snow or ice that may fall or form
on the psrye..,rpts 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 a fine
I'm the Police Court and il the refusal OF
responsible parties is persistent, the Com
missioners are empowered to cause the en-
cumbrance TO be removed and to charge the
cost Of the removal TO owner Of the place.
TO 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 Il could not be re-
moved. sawdust or some such substance
was TO be sprinkled over the street 10 pre-
vent pedestrians from slipping.
Several violations OF this law were noted
last winter. and the agents Of the property
we're 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 TO the District
Court of Appeals, and a short time after
ward decision was handed down revers-
ing the decision Of the Police Court. The
decision Of this court was without criti-
eism, except to point out where the law
o was defective. In rendering the decision
Justice Norris said:
Il Is not often that in so short a statute as
this there are found 81 MANY crldities and iucou-
Eistencies, and cannot hu suppose that Con-
grCss has been led into its enactment without
que consideration, IN reliance upon its promoters
and upon the good purpose which ID was evidently
intended 90 suhsoTve.
The whole act Is open 20 the grave objection
that % r. unequal in its operation. fails 90 reach
nonresident owners OF vacant land OF uUoccupicd
property and makes no provision for the removal
Of snow or Ice from the sidewalks in frort of
The squares and open places and other property
Of the United States, for which some such pro-
vision is as much required. for the purposes Of
The act, as for the sidewalks in front of private
property.
D. being very apparent 10 us tina, the plain
tihs 10 crIor arr not within the puryiew oi the
act ot Congress IN question, and that. iu respect
az the several pieces Of land mentioned fu the
tnformatous, they are not ameuable 90 the pen
aiucs of tire act. 10 Is unnecessary for us 90 OK
press any opinion on the broader question of the
eonstitutionsiIty Of the enactment ~ 10 those
70 whom The provisions OF the act might be held
properly 60 apply
We prefer 20 wait until a case arises in which
the determination Of that question becomes uecrS-
sary, especially In view Of the fact that the
emergency 10 which the statute relates IS NOT
likely o. arise again for many months. and il NAV
be deemed cNpeoient 10y those having such mat
tiers Doe change 10 apply TO Congress for
additional legislation to remove the fre0naIifi f..
And TO correct the iuhuuities Of the existing
statute.
The principal trouble with the bill ac-
COrding TO the statements Of several per-
sons interested, IS that it is not explicit
as to who shall be held responsible Almost
every piece OF property IN the city has d
tenant or owner or agent and the law does
not say whether all or only one of these
shall be amenable to the charge. In cases Of
vacant lots. where there is only an. owner
and an agent. the law does not state which
Is TO be held responsible except wherein il
provides that the cost Of the removal il
dore by the District, shall be charged "a
the property as a regular tax. In this
event not only vacant lots. bur improved
property as Well viii be chargc8ble only "a
the owner.
The cases which were presented to The
Police Court last year were against ii,
agents Of unimproved property and tho
agents protested that they were not re-
sponsible and could not be fined.
Another difficulty encountered in the on.
forcement OF the law is the lack OF fund.
with which to comply with the provision.
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 az
available for this purpose, but it viii not
happen so again, they claim. and this yelI
there IS no fund which can be drawn uUon
Tor the necessary funds.