The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-16

other cause why your communication
should not be entered as a complaint.
THE contractor cannot be held respon-
sible for unsatisfactory service where the
householder has failed to comply with the
existing garbage regulations of the Street
Cleaning Department. When these regu-
lations have been complied with and the
householder does not receive proper SER
vice the case should be referred to the
Street Cleaning Department for investiga-
ton.
1T is unlawful to put anything except
animal or vegetable matter in garbage
receptacles. Collectors Will not be re-
quired to remove garbage containing
ashes, cans, glass, straw. paper. or any
thing but animal or vegetable matter
The Commissioners have received from
r. ]. Tracewell, Comptroller of the Treas
ury, a decision relative to the question of
using the emergency fund 10 pay for
storage on abandoned property. The
question was raised by the Police Depart
ment, and upon 1t the Comptroller says:
1t appears that some time ago a deputy
United States marshal. in compliance
with an order issued by the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia. dis
possessed the occupants of aihouse IN this
city and placed their household effects on
the sidewalk, where they remained for
several days, an obstruction to public
thoroughfare, and it is claimed menace
to public health. The police sefdeavored
to get the interested parties TO remove
the furniture, but without SUCCESS, and 1t
was finally taken charge of by the police
as abandoned property and delivered 10
the property clerk of the metropolitan
police district in accordance. with section
400, Revised Statutes, United States, re-
lating to the District of Columbia, VINO
placed il in a storage warehouse, as the
n
The owner of the property having been
found, efforts were made to get her 10
reclaim and remove the same out SO Tar
she has failed to do so.
Pursuant to section All of the Revised
Statutes of the United States. relating TO
the District of Columbia, the property,
unless sooner claimed, viii be soid at
public auction on May |, and the pro-
ceeds paid into the policemen iunu
Certain charges for storage having pc
come due. 1t is suggested that they may
be paid from the appropriation contained
in the act of June 8, 1900 t5l stat, 5i3): 10
be expended only in case of emergency,
such as riot, pestilence. public lnsanltary
conditions, calamity by flood or hre, anu
OF like character, and in all cases OF
emergency not otherwise sufficiently pro-
vided for, IS coo. 80
II do not think this appropriation can
lawfully be used in payment OF storage
charges arising in the manner above set
forth. No emergency creating puohc IN
sanitary conditions appears TO nave arisen
of the property from the Sidewalks py
the ordinary machinery of the Police De
partment. The cost of storage growing
out of the owners failure to redeem the
same should be borne by the owner, if
the property is reclaimed, or by the prop
erty, If it is sold as abandoned properly.
IT, meanwhile any cost for storage mas
arisen which must be paid before the re.
clamation or sale of the property, IL
would / think. be proper to pay the same
from the contingent expenses of the 70.
lice Department. subject TO reimbursement
of that appropriation when the proper!
is reclaimed or otherwise disposed OF.
Margaret Cook, of Brightwood, D. C.,
has requested permission of4Sthe COM
missionars to pay water main assessment
against her property on Brightwood Ave
nue. without costs II. H.. Darneille, the
Assessor, in reporting upon the applica-
ton has recommended that the request
be not granted. submitting the following
statement:
The property in question was original
ly assessed for water main in Brightwood
Avenue, in name of Annie c. Beall, Au-
gust 10. 1895.
BY act, approved June 2. 1860, Congress
directed Commissioners TO cancel assess
ments for water main on Brightwood Ave
nue., between Military Road and Aspen
Street, and reasSeSs property according
TO existing law. the assessment In ques-
ton being included in the scope of this
act.
In 1896, this II, 100 acres was transferred
to Margaret Cook, the present owner.
The property was reassessed. July IL,
1890 for $3.50, and advertising S22.i2, total
sSi.92
u do not consider the fact that the
writer offered to pay old assessment after
passage of act of June ?. $780, good grounds
for remission of advertising, scharges.
She does not state specifically when she
made such offer. but If Ii was made be-
tween the passage of the act and the Com
missioners order cancelingi assessment.
she might have been permitted to pay it.
If 1t WIS after order canceling assess
ment tand it is fair to presume that it
was. since she was told she could not
pay), she could not have paid it,
I'm any case, she has been charged for
advertising on the same basis as the rest
of the persons affected .sa