Evening star., 1901-06-07
BUILDINGINSPECTOR'SBOND
DUyALL SAYS COMMITS
sIONERs MAY REQUIRE IT.
Opinions Rendered Today on Matters
Referred-DiscussiOn of Drain-
age Facilities.

cejNeu TWO opinions from MI. A d. Du-
vall the attorney for the District, upon
matters recently referred to him. One of
the opinions was in regard to the bond
which is required of the District inspector
Of buildings, Mr.. Duvall holding that the
Commissioners have a right, If they deem
it proper. to exact bond. and the other
opinion is in regard to drainage facilities
on certain portions of Brightwood avenue.
For some weeks past the Commission
ers have been engaged in preparing re-
vision of the building regulations. Upon
reaching the section which provides that
the inspector shall give bond of 100000, it
was decided. on motion of Commissioner
Ross, to refer to the attorney the question
as to whether or not the Commissioners had
the authority to adopt such a regulation,
under the general power given them by the
act of Congress, approved June IA, 1873,
authorizing the Commissioners ito make
and enforce such building regulations for
the District of Columbia they may deem
advisable Mr.. Duvall says the Commits
sioners have the right to make reasonable
requirements in connection with appoint
mentS to offices. He does not see, how
ever. how the clause requiring bond can
be claSSed n building regulation.
Mr.. Duvall calls attention to section 3 of
the building regulations. which provides
that the inspector of buildings before en-
tering upon the duties of his office, shall
execute bond to the District of Columbia
in the sum of 10000 with three sureties,
conditioned upon the faithful performance
of the duties of his office which bond
shall be for the benefit of all parties ag
grieved by his acts or neglect, and shall be
filed with his OATH
Il am unable to see," says Mr.. Duvall.
'hoW such a provision can be considered a
building regulation Ii does not relate gen.
erically to the subject matter of such
regulation. By the act of Congress provid-
ing a permanent form of government for
the District of Columbia, approved June
il. 1878, the Commissioners are authorized
among other things, to make appointments
to any office under them authorized by law
The authority in my judgment, implies the
right and power of the Commissioners to
make such reasonable requirements in con-
nectfon with the appointment of officers as
Will best insure the proper performance of
their duties
The District of Columbia is a municipal
corporation, of which the Commissioners
are the executive officers and | am of the
opinion that if, IN the judgment of the
commissioners. 1t is a reasonable require
nient that the inspector of buildings should
execute bond for the faithful performance
of his duties, they may require such a
bond"
Mr.. Duvan also submitted to the Commits
sioners today an opinion upon the commu-
nlcation of c. G. Lancaster, relative to
the laying of a drain on his property on
Brightwood avenue. between Ontario and
Qulnnebaugh streets. Mr.. Lancaster re-
quested a drain from the culvert in the
gutter in front of his property to the rear
OF the lot in order to carry off the surface
water. Mr.. Duvall says:
1t is claimed that the District has con-
structed a culvert in the gutter in front of
TINS property which throws the water
thereon The assistant engineer reports
that the natural outlet for the water is
over this land, and until sewers are eX-
tended to this section he does not see how
the water can be diverted and that no
damage to the land can be observed and
none is admitted.
AS l understand the case under consid-
Grafton, the surface water has not been di-
Verted and cast upon this land in any
greater volume than the natural flow
thereof due to the confguration of the
land. The authorities are pretty well set
tied. and our local court has held that
even where private property is damaged
by surface water the result of grading
or otherwise improving the streets, If the
work was done in a careful and proper
manner. the municipality will not be held
liable for consequential damages resulting
from the surface water"
After quoting from the decisions of sew
eral cases in SubStantlation of this view
he concludes:
Il am of the opinion that upon the facts
in the present case the District is under
no legal liability to comply with the re-
quest of the applicant