The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-03-15


the Case of the keyes Premises
Tax Exemption of the BrooIsIand
baptist Church - Current Notes.
Andrew B. Duvsll. the Attorney for the
District. yesterday submitted to The Com
ruissioners his opinion upon the COM
munication of the Health officer relative
to the unsanitarv condition of premises
1910 I Street northwest. by reason Of foul
water accommodating in the cellar because
of an obstruction in the sewer
The particular question asked of the
Attorney by the Commissioners was
whether the notice mailed TO the owner
was sunlCient to authorize proceedings
under section % of the ordinance to re-
wise. consolidate. and amend the ordi-
nances OF the Board Of Hcalth, etc.
1T appears" says the Attorney, that
the tenant of the premises was notified
TO abate the nuisance. and, having failed
to do so. was prosecuted in the Police
Court. where the case was dismissed.
Thereupon. on February l, 1901, the
Health officer mailed notice to the
owner Mrs. Martha A. keyes, Linden,
Md. calling attention to the exist
ence of the nuisance in said premises
and notifying her to abate the same with
her that if she failed so to do the Health
Department would proceed to cause its
abatement and coilect the cost in the
manner provided by law. The receipt
for this letter was returned to the Health
Office signed Martha A Keyes, by Frank
r. Keycs.
Section % of the ordinance to revise.
consolidate, and amend the ordinances of
the Board of Health. to declare what
shall he deemed nuisances injurious to
health. and to provide for the removal
thereof q Supl. Stat, S06). relates solely
to such things as are declared thereby
to be nuisances: the only paragraph In
the ordinances embracing such a case as
the one under consideration is paragraph
9; but this paragraph with two others)
Congress expressly refused to legalize by
its Joint resolution legalizing the health
ordinance approved August rs. 1874 q
Supl Stat, 3O6). There does not appear
to be any other ordinance or regulation
declaring such condition as the one
under consideration to be nuisance
"A like condition upon an open lot is
declared to be a nuisance by section l
of the 1egalized ordinances.
Under the joint resolution, approved
February 26, 1892, the Commissioners are
empowered to make regulations neces-
sary for the protection of public health;
they are therefore authorized to make
regulations which would reach such a
case as the present.
THE Commissioners are also given
power by the act of Congress authoriz-
ing the appointment of an inspector of
plumbing. approved April g. 1892, to
make regulations for the maintenance in
good order of house sewers; but neither
the plumbing nor other regulations ap-
pear to reach the case, even for the pur-
poses of abatement.
THE Health Officer has power only to
enforce regulations. However, If the
condition OF the premises is such as to
endanger the public health. /. e., the
health of persons in the vicinity; or is
offensive by reason of foul odors, to per-
sons who may be in the vicinity. pub
lie nuisance is considered to exist even
though in a private dwelling house
Wood on Nuisances,' 572-3.
And the proper authorities of the Dis
trict may abate such a nuisance in a
summary manner, though no authority
for that purpose is given by statute
Hart VS.. Mayor, Albany, Wend., oil;
Baker VS.. Boston. Z Pick, 49,
1T is said In Wood on Nuisances,' III:
There can be no question but whore a
nuisance exists within its corporate linn
its that is clearly a nuisance at common
law or by statute, that is detrimental to
the health of the inhabitants, IL may be
abated by authorities. but it must be a
nuisance at common law and one which
any person injured thereby might law
fully abate of his own motion, or, in the
absence of express authority statutory
given the removal or abatement of the
10 f,r1 he
thing abated is clearly a nuisance and
one which affects the health of the city,
the abatement may be made by the au-
thorities or by any person injured there
by. The common law in such case comes
in aid Of the authorities, and they are
justified in the act, not because they are
officials Of the city, but because they are
citizens injured by the thing abated.
The notice given TO the owner, Mrs.
Keyes. by the Health Officer In the pres
ent case, has no peculiar legal effect so
as to fix any penal liability upon her,
but having actual notice of the nuisance
it became her legal duty to remove the
same. and falling to do so. and thus rem
dering il necessary for the authorities
To incur the expense of removal an ac-
ton on the case in assumpsit would prob
ably lie for the recovery Of the expenses
incurred-on the promise implied by law:
II was such an action as this that was
brought against the Metropolitan Rail
road Company by the District, for the
expense Of paving streets etc.
But in this action against her nothing
would be presumed in favor Of the Dis
trict. the owner would be entitled to a
trial of the question Of the existence Of
the nuisance. the necessity Of abatement
without proceedings in court and whether
the expense incurred was reasonable, l. e.
that nothing more was done than to abate
the nuisance.
1t, therefore. appears to me that no
good purpose would be served in making
this case a precedent for future action
because the remedy for future cases
would be more effective by framing a reg
uatipn to cover such cases.
Richard a. Ford. in behalf o. the Brook
land Baptist Church. recently wrote to
the Commissioners requesting that taxes
and assessments against lots II and i.
block %, Leighton * Pairo's subdivision
OF BroOkand. be Cancelled and the prop
CITY be listed as exempt from taxation
Mir. Ford s letter. together with the