Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-05-02
Hearing Given to the Applicants for
a Permit.
PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTED
Discussion of Petitions Filed in
Support of Company's Request.
UNDER CON ONSIDERATION

I y.
desire permit to erect a market building
on the east side Of 14th street between V
and w streets, and to those property own
ers in the vicinity who wished to enter
| protest against the granting OF a permit
for the market. There was a large attend-
ance of the promoters OF the market
and residents of the section of the city in
volved, and quite an array of legal talent
representing the various parties at issue.
During the hearing there was quite heat
ed colloquy between the attorneys. and
charges We're made that all the dealings
IN connection with the proposed market
had not been fair. After hearing all who
wished to be heard upon the subject tho
Commissioners took the matter under ad-
visement. and will announce their decision
at n future date. There are number of
legal questions involved. and II is probable
the advice Of the attorney for the Dis
trict will be sought before decision IS
announced.
f. Edward Mitchell, one Of the attorneys
for the market company. opened the hear
ing. lie referred to the fact that a former
petition for market permit for the same
premises had been denied. and that certain
charges had been made against the true
value of the petitions of property holders
In the vicinity filed at that time. Now he
continued, the company again seeks per-
NIT. ana Its representatives had within the
past thirty days secured the consent of q
majority of the property holders In square
DO in which it is proposed to erect the
market, and also In square DOB, across 14th
street, confronting the market site. The
consent Of the majority, thus obtained, he
declared. was a compliance with the law,
and he thought the permit should be grant-
cd. Mr.. Mitchell said further that to Of
fend as little as possible the property own
ers on street, where residences are To-
Gated the market company would hot con-
front them with dead wall, but had en-
tered into contract for the II ION ~
three brick stores along the V street side
of the site, and the stores would have alb
solutely no connection with the market
and there would be no entrances through
them to the latter structure. He said tho
market was a necessity, a public con-
venlence, and petition signed by seventy
five business men in the section would be
filed.
Mr.. John C. Heald of counsel for the
market company followed Mr. Mitchell,
lie went into the details of the market
| plans and said all the requirements Of the
law had been met, and there was no reason
for the Commissioners to deny the COM.
pany the privilege ii asked. lie said that
the bona-fide consent of the adjacent prop-
erty owners had been secured.
Speaks for Protecting Citizens.
Mr.. S. w. Johnston. who resides on v
street near 18th, spoke first for the protest.
ing citizens. Mr.. Johnston is a venerable,
white-haired gentleman, with long flowing
beard, and he listened to with great
respect and interest throughout his re-
marks. He said he was not a lawyer In
the present case, cut had practiced the
pr ofession for nearly sixty years. He de-
clared that the trend OF public opinion TO-
day is against the multiplication OF small
| market houses throughout the community.
In Paris and London there is but one ErCat
market place in each city.
The planting of a small market" con.
tinued Mr.. Johnston, in community is O
blight to all the surrounding property. a
market is a nuisance
Mir. Johnston then spoke Of the conditions
prevailing about the various market houses
already In existence in the capital. He
declared there was a lady present at the
hearing who had been driven from her
home at 9TH and x streets by market,
She had moved to the vicinity of where it
is proposed 10 erect the Columbia market,
and would thus again be driven out Mr..
Johnston contended that there was no ne-
cessity for a market In the vicinity He
said it had been stated that the proposed
new market would accommodate the peo-
pie Of Mount Pleasant. He declared that
the Mount Pleasant people should then
build the market nearer their homes.
Fourteenth street. declared Mr.. john
ston, is one of the principal driving thor-
oughfares OF the city. A market with its
struct the street and interfere with this
class of travel. Mr.. Johnston declared
further that under the law the Commiss
sioners were not compelled to grant the
permit simply because a majority OF the
property owners affected granted their con-
sent. The law simply provides that unless
they do grant their consent, the permit wiii
not be granted.
MIR. Johnston then declared that there
were names on the original petition filed
by the market company which were noe
authorized.
company, objected to this. and demanded
more explicit statement. Mr.. Johnston SAID
it woula be made by the attorney VINO
\ vrhtn tfae, .lid n
| proceeding had been characterized through
| out by suspicion, and that the market COM
pany had not been acting in good faith:
Commissioner Macfarland, who presided,
| suggested that the attorneys should give
! the Commissioners only the facts.
Mr.. Jackson's Statement.
Mr.. E. Hilton Jackson, principal attorney
| for the protesting property owners, was
| next heard. He said he proposed to show
| that of the owners Of property who signed
| the petition for the market very few re-
sided In the vicinity. In square 30, In
which it is proposed to locate the market,
! he said, there were twenty signatures TO
| the petition. Sixteen of those who signed
do not live on the property involved, but
| reside elsewhere. In the confronting square
| opposite, of the ten or eleven property own-
| ers who signed, only one or two resided On
the ground.
| lady who declared she had not signed the
|
| pany, whereas her name appeared on the
paper followed by Per r. H." Mr.. Jack
| son said that IL "R. H" was present he
would like to ask him a few questions. Mr..
| Robert Head arose and stated that he had
| signed the name
Attorney Mitchell then explained to the
| Commissioners that the original petition
was circulated in duplicate, one being in
| charge of Mr. Head and another In charge
| of a young lady. Meeting in the evening,
| the young lady and Mr.. Head would trans
| fer the names as to complete the two
| lists 1t was a mistake, Mr.. Mitchell said,
| that only one of the duplicate petitions
| had been filed with the Commissioners. and
| on that one the name of the lady referred
| to appeared, as it had been transferred by
| Mr.. Head
= Mr. Macfarland inquired of Mr.. Head:
| did you sign any of the other names
| that We're on that petition in the same
| manner?"
| Yes SIR" Mr. Head replied.
| Ibid you inform the Commissioners OF
| the facts in the case?"
| mo. SIR
| Only Question Before Board.