The times., 1901-04-16


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-
tioD.
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. j. Tracewell, Comptroller of the Treas
ury 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 it 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 a house in this
city and placed their household effects on
the sidewalk, where they remained for
several days, an obstruction to a public
thoroughfare, and it is claimed, a menace
to public health. The police -endeavored
to get the interested parties to remove
the furniture, but without SUCCESS, and IL
was finally taken charge of by the police
as abandoned property and delivered to
the property clerk of the metropolitan
police district in accordancenwith section
400 Revised Statutes, United states, re-
lating to the District of Columbia, VINO
placed it in a storage warehouse, as the
storerooms of the department were filed.
The owner of the property having peeh
found, efforts were made to get her 10
reclaim and remove the same out SO Idl
she has failed to do so.
Pursuant to section All of the ReViSeu
Statutes of the United States. relating 10
the District of Columbia, the property,
unless sooner claimed. VIII DE soiu at
pubIic auction on May ]. and the pro-
ceeds paid into the policemen Iuiu.
Certain charges for storage haYlng pc
come due. 1t is suggested tH&t lhey my my
be paid from the appropriation contalneu S
in the act of June D. ly9O t5l stat, o''t'
be expended only in case OF emergency,
such as riot, pestilence, puhilc lnSdHitaIS
conditions, calamity by flood or nre, ana
of like character, and in all cases OF
emergency not otherwise sufhclehtiy pio-
vided for, $1,000 oo,
lawfully be used in payment of storage
charges arising in the manner apONe see
forth. No emergency creating puohc m N
sanitary conditions appears to nave arlsen s'zi
which could not be met by the removal
of the property from the sldeWaihS py
the ordinary machinery of the Ponce .'+- Ie-
partment. The cost of storage growing
out of the owners failure to redeem tnS
same should be borne by the owner, IL
the property is reclaimed, or by the prop
erty If it is sold as abandoned properly.
IT, meanwhile, any cost Tor storage ilas
arisen which must be paid before the re-
clamation or sale of the property II
would. ] think. be proper to pay the Same n
from the contingent expenses OF the 70
lice Department. subject to reimbursement
,rt hat
is reclaimed or otherwise disposed o.
Margaret Cook, of Brightwood, u. -
has requested permission of the Com
missioners to pay water main assessment
against her property on Brightwood Ave-
nue. without costs. H. 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
Iv assessed for water main in Brightwood
Avenue, in name of Annie G. Beall, Au-
gust 10, 1895
by act, approved June 2. 1900, Congress
directed Commissioners 10 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-
tion being included in the scope of this
act.
I'm 1896, this II 100 acres was transferred
to Margaret Cook. the present owner
| The property was reassessed. July l3,
1860 for $3.50, and advertising 1922 total
$S4 90
Il do not consider the fact that the
writer offered to pay old assessment after
passage Of act of June 2, 1890, good grounds
for remission OF advertising charges.
She does not state specifically when she
made such offer, but if it was made be-
tween the passage of the act and the Com
misSioneTS order canceling assessment.
! she might have been permitted to pay it.
! If it VAS after order canceling assess
ment (and it is fair to presume that it
was, since she was told she could not
| pay) she could not have paid ito
In any case, she has been charged for
advertising on the same basis as the rest
| Of the persons affecte -