The Washington times., 1901-07-06

that there remains a balance of $500 of
the appropriation for the maintenance of
additional arc lamps established during
the fiscal year ended June 80. 1901. He
states that this was due to the delay in
building the conduits and that the lamps
were not maintained during the entire
year Mr. Allen states further that the
appropriation for the present fiscal year
is not sufficient 20 maintain all the lamps
established and he recommends that the
following be discontinued until such time
as the funds win permit of their re-estab
lishment: one northeast corner Four
teenth Street and Florida Avenue north
west: one Fourteenth Street. between b
and G Streets northwest; one b Street,
between Thirteenth and Thirteen-and "a
half Streets northwest; one b Street pc
tween Tenth and Eleventh Streets north
west; one L Street, between Ninth ana
Tenth Streets northwest; one u street,
between Fifth and Sixth Streets north
west; one d Street, between F1ftn ana
Sixth Streets northwest; one Eleventh
Street between + and q Streets north
west; one Vermont Avenue, between III
and l Streets northwest; one Con
necticut Avenue, between and DE
Sales Streets northwest; one north
side of New York Avenue, between
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Streets north
west; one west side Fourteenth Street,
Road; one west side of Fourteenth Street,
between Princeton and Yale Streets
northwest; one west side of Fourteenth
Street. between Chaplin Street and Well
ing Place northwest; nine NJ Street, be
tween Eighteenth and Twenty-hrst
Streets northwest.
Mr.. Allen states that with the excep-
tion of the nine lamps on NJ Street, be-
tween Eighteenth and Twenty-first
Streets. the lamps are scattered and so
selected as not to seriously interfere with
the general illumination of the streets.
Andrew b. Duvall, the Attorney for the
District yesterday sent to the Commits
sioners his opinion upon the application
of NJ J. Griffith, for John Carroll, for
tax deed on lot 3. square Sc. based on the
tax sale made January "A, 1888. In review
ing the case Mr.. Duvall states that John
Carroll purchased the lot at two tax sales,
namely, September 80, 1877, and January
a. 1855, and thereafter surrendered the
respective certificates of sale in Novem-
Der, 1890 The Attorney thinks that the
tax deed was regularly issued to him
based upon the tax sale of September 80
1881, and that an application is now made
for a deed based on the former tax sale
OF January "a, 1855 Continuing, the At
torney says:
1T does not clearly appear whether two
tax deeds were issued or not MI. Grlf-
fifth, in his letter to the Commissioners,
states that no deed based upon the TAX
ale of 1885 was received. or, If received.
il cannot be found. In my Judgment, II
only one deed was Issued, il may fairly be
considered, after the lapse of more than
ten years. without further and clearer
explanation. that only one deed was re
quested OF deemed necessary by the holder
of the certificates.
sale of 1855 was issued and delivered upon
the Surrender of the certificate, there Is
no showing made to justify the issue OF
duplicate deed at this time. In either
event ! am of the opinion, especially IN
view of the great lapse of time, that the
present application should not be grant
ed.
A few days ago a petition signed by
Emanuel Speich and others praying for
the Improvement of that portion of
Street lying between a point 200 feet from
the terminus of the existing pavement to
First Street northwest The petitioners
called the attention of the Commissioners
to the numerous blocks of houses that
have been erected on Seventh Street dur
ing the last few months. They cited the
fact that the existing pavement between
Second Street and the Moore and Barbour
tract being within 200 feet Of the entire
distance between First and Second
Streets, was laid seven years ago under
the permit system, under which the prop
erty owners paid one-half of the expense
Of the Improvement. The petitioners are,
therefore. of the opinion that the cost of
the pavement referred to in the above
request should be paid by the District out
Of the public revenues.
c. B. Hunt. the Computing Engineer, in
reporting upon the petition. recommends
that they be informed that the Commits
sioners are without means to pave the
street referred to with asphalt block, eX-
cept under the provisions Of the permit
system. Mr.. Hunt states that the appro-
priation for repairs to county roads is not
applicable TO the work. He also suggests
that the petitioners be informed that if
the Improvement Of the street under the
permit system is desired an estimate of
the cost Of the work will be furnished by
his office
Acting upon the recommendation Of Ma
jor Sylvester the Commissioners have