The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-03
WITHDRAWs HIS CLAIM.
Thomas w. GiImer Pleads His Case
before the Commissioners.

The Commissioners yesterday granted a
hearing to Thomas ". Gilmer. of 545 Flor
ida Avenue northwest. relative to his
claim against the District for the payment
for sidewalk laid in front of his premises
543 and 545 Florida Avenue
Mr.. Gilmer called attention to the orig
inal petition for the laying of the side
walk. which asked that the entire space
between the houses and the curb be COW
cred with cement. Mr.. Gilmer then made
a statement to the Commissioners to the
effect that during his absence in Europe
last summer the sidewalk was laid The
cement, he said, was laid ten feet wide,
leaving some three feet and a half bare
He stated that the grade of this walk was
changed, and that many bricks were left
about, making the whole place unsightly
He said he could not and would not leave
the front in such condition. He accord
ingly sent for the Crawford Paving Com
pany to come and lay new cement upon
the bare part or parking. Mr.. Gilmer
claimed that the District should pay for
this extra pairing and assess one-half of
the cost against the property in the usual
way.
Commissioner mcfarland, in asking for
specific information upon the matter,
used the word parking, which led to a
long discussion between him and Mr.. Gil
mer, the latter not wishing to admit that
the three feet Of space referred to should
be digniied with the term parking Fin
ally ii was agreed that the order OF the
Commissioners directing the laying Of the
sidewalk had been in accordance with the
regulations, and that the remaining space,
be it much or little was parking within
the meaning OF the regulations.
This point settled, Mr.. Macfarland ask
ed Mr. Gilmer if it was true that ne wish
ed the District to pay fer the paving
OF the parking in front OF private prop
erty on private contract. Mr.. Gilmer
did not wish to admit the implication put
in that form. He turned to the discus
sion of the question OF the Commissioners
assuming the cost of the paving BY
amendment of the original order
At this point Commissioner Ross asked
Mr.. Gilmer whether he did not think that
the Commissioners in assuming the cost
In this case would lay themselves liable
TO pay for the paving or laying of side
walk on parking IL all parts of the city
where the owners. becoming dissatisfied
with present conditions. might order the
space paved. Mr.. GiImer admitted in the
discussion of this proposition that the
District was not legally liable for the
cost of pavement on parking.
Commissioner Beach asked Mr.. Gilmer
if he was not acquainted with the law
which said that the whole cost of the
laying Of sidewalks under the assessment
system is charged against and proper
toned pro rata among the lots. Mr.. Gill
mer said he believed there was such
law. though he was not very familiar
with 1t at the present time.
Mr.. Gllmer, seeing the objections OF
the Commissioners to his proposition
withdrew It. He asked that the Commis-
sioners should draft an amendment TO
the regulations which would enable
property holders in the future by their
expressed with to have the entire space
in front of their premises paved.