Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-11-20
REVIEWS THE DISCUSSION
COMMUNICATION. FROM t. W. GIL
MER TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
Laying of Sidewalk and ASSESS.
ment Therefor-The Law In
the Case

Mr.. Thomas W. Gilmer of 545 Florida
avenue has again addressed the District
commissioners relative to the sidewalk
laid some time ago in front Of his property
and that of his wife. In his last COM
munfcation he ignores the Engineer Commits
sioner, Captain Beach, addressing it to
Commissioners mcfarland and Ross. He
expresses the hope that when they get
ready to decide his case they will have
before them his previous communicat tons
upon the subject.
Mr.. Gilmer explains to the two civil
Commissioners that if they decide that the
District shall pay for one-half of a COM
plete sidewalk. there need be no technical
difficulty in the way of settlement. ~ on
can, he further explains to them, Issue
a nunc pro tune order amending the origi-
ma! order for the work. You can pay the
contractors for all of the sidewalk at the
District contract price. Ii the contractors
should not be satisfied with this settle
ment, they would have no claim against the
District. but only against the individual
for the amount claimed in excess of Dis
trict contract rates. Then the individual
could either pay the excess charged to MIN
or stand suit. l think l should stand suit,
but the District would not be concerned
about that.
"Of course, continued Mr.. Gilmer. in
further explanation. "a separate assess
ment should be made against each lot,
Charging Tie owner One-0lll iIe CoSt VI
construction abutting his premises. Every
body with whom l have conversed on TINS
subject agrees that a change is needed IN
the management of the sidewalk business
Some suffer in silence, but the injustice
of the present system is felt have been
informed that the District paid for one
half of a complete sidewalk on Florida ave
nue. between 4th and 9TH streets. but my
informant may be mistaken / do not th!nk
there would be any discrimination. My
claim refers to Florida avenue between 9TH
and 9th Streets
Appeal From Captain Beach.
In previous communication, addressed
to Commissioner Macfarland, Mr.. Gilmer
explained that the case Is an appeal from
the Engineer Commissioner, and he stated
that, as Captain Beach has published his
side of the controversy he wished his Gill
mer's) reply to be published in full, stating
that he is not afraid of the popular verdict
when all the facts are known. He said his
wife's name should not have been made a
matter of public discussion, explaining that
Mrs. Gilmer paid the assessment by mis-
take. He declared he has never asked to
have any other individual pay for side
walk in front of his property. contending
that the owner of a lot should pay for one
half of the cost of a complete sidewalk and
no more. The District contractor in his
case, he charged, left the sidewalk in a
dangerous well incomplete condi-
ton, saying that if any one wants narrow
sidewalk with big mud streaks on each
side he can have it that way, although he
has never seen any one who wanted that
kind OF walk laid by the Engineer Com
missioner.
Mr.. and Mrs. Gilmer were among those
who petitiOned for the laying of the side
walk. but in a letter to the commissioners
dated June % last they revoked their sig
natures to the petition. claiming that their
revocation made a majority against it. AT
the same time they said much good has
n iG shed unIpr this law
August !. ls9D, and we hope there will be
nc trouble as to its consttutionalty.' This
act authorizes the assessment of one-haif
of the expense OF such work against
abutting property owners.
The Engineer Commissioner replied that
the revocation of their signatures by Mr..
and Mrs Gilmer left G3te per cent of the
property owners still in favor of lne work
petitioned for, and that for that reason it
was not deemed advisable to cancel the
order for it - -.------ -