Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-09-29
VIOLATION WAS TECHNICAL.
Mr.. Louthan's Connection With
Building Permit Incident.

Early in August the Commissioners made
an investigation of several cases where
building operations had been undertaken
without first securing permits, and in the
course of the Endorsements one member of
the police force was censured for failing to
stop work which was being done without
permit.
One of the builders mentioned in the mat
ter was Mr.. John c. Louthan, who was
making some minor repairs to the building
at the corner of 18th and Concord streets.
According to the reports made at the time
and printed in The Star:
Private Stroman Of the precinct noticed
the repairs, which are on the inside Of the
house, and asked for the permit. Lieuten-
ant Slattery says the private was informed
by Mr. Louthan that the building inspect
ors Office did not consider 1t necessary to
issue one.
ION July % Private Stroman called again
and told Mr.. Louthan If he did not have a
permit by noon the next day the work
would be stopped. He says at 1890 o'clock
the next morning the building Inspectors
Office notified the tenth precinct to allow
Mr.. Louthan to continue the work, the per-
nit to be on hand the next morning.
Mr.. Louthan's violation of the building
regulations was therefore purely tech
meal one, and he has taken steps through
correspondence with the Commissioners
and inspectors office to set himself right.
In a statemeat. to The Star Mr.. Louthan
says: ,x.,z
'In this connssctfon your attention is called
to the articlel IN question, entitled Didn't
Have PermitsRs etc.. fragrant Case Found
Out in Broohlanas The. article proceeds
upon the theoSy, as indicated in the head
lines, that |, as builder and contractor
operating In oEthe1 District of Columbia,
dagrantly violatedn the laws pertaining to
building operations. This charge Is seri-
GUS one to bgingfagainst a contractor. If
true he Is liable torcriminal prosecution and
to punishment as criminal. If true those
seeking or DESIRING the services Of a builder
would be justified In seeking, and probably
would seek, elsewhere than an individual
accused in thsa pablo prints of fagrantly
violating the law pertaining to his business
"Now as TOT facts: The Job was one of
the hurry-up sgAriaty, where the work was
to doing that part of the work. such as
shelving, etc; that was clearly not within
the inhibition Of the building regulations.
and as was in some doubt whether the
removal Of slight Partition would require
a permit I proceeded at once to the office
of the building Inspector, presented the
case and asked Whether 1t came within the
rules was informed by the permit clerk
that no permit was necessary, and proceed
ed accordingly. was stopped from work
by Policeman Strpman. and again present.
ed the matter to the building INSPECTOR
with the result that made application for
q permit and the officer received directions
from the inspectors Office to allow me to
proceed. .r,.,sr..,ras...
These facts are substantially and clearly
shown in my letter OF August Z, 1903 to
Building Inspector Ashford, and In his
reply, dated August IL, 1903 and tn INV
letter of August 10 and Commissioners let
ter OF September 1, 1909"
The correspondence between Mr.. Louthan