Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-04-13
WHO WILL BE OWNER?
TITLE TO NEW LAND FOR GAR
FIELD HOSPITAL.
Letter Of Controller Tracewell to
Justice Harlan, President Of
Board Of Trustees.

Justice John M. Harlan, president of the
board of trustees of Garfield Memorial
Hospital, recently wrote to the controller
of the treasury asking for an opinion In
reference to the title to property to be
acquired by the hospital for additions and
improvements. This is the property be-
longing to the heirs of H. M. Schneider,
adjoining the present Garfield Hospital
land on the west, extending on 18th street
from Florida avenue to Clifton street, and
containing about $1,000 square feet. Con-
gress appropriated $4,000 for the acquisi-
ton Of the property. Controller Tracewell
believes that 1t is not within his province
to render an opinion.
In a long letter to the controller as to
whether the title shall be taken in the
name of the Commissioners of the District
or in the name of the Garfield Memorial
Hospital Justice Harlan says that the
question must sooner or later come before
the controller, and 1t would be welcome to
the trustees to have the matter passed upon
now. Justice Harlan says:
up to this time the title to all the prop
erty of the Garfield Memorial Hospital is
in the board of trustees Of that institution
and is held by them for the purposes for
which the institution was established 1t
has been the policy of the institution from
all property it uses. 1t would be very in
convenient If the title to part was In the
hospital and the remainder in the District
Of Columbia. 1t seems to me that there
is nothing in the language of the Schnei-
der act that requires the District to take
the title to itself. 1t would be very in
convenient if the title were taken by the
District. and I am sure Congress did not
intend such a result.
Justice Harlan says in conclusion: IF
the title must be in the District, the ap-
preparation to buy the Schneider property
will fail. although it is quite important
IN hn Of no ma
have the additional grounds contemplated
by Congress.
Cannot Give an Opinion.
In passing upon the question, Mr. Trace
well says that he has no general authority
to render advance decisions. He quotes the
law, saying that disbursing officers or the
head of any executive department may APP
ply for an opinion and says that 1T is ap-
parent president of the board of trus-
tees of Garfield Memorial Hospital. you
do not come within the designation of any
of the government officers who are entitled
to invoke a decision of the controller" Mr..
Tracewell thereupon says that the money
tor for the District and that the question
will not come before him at all unless upon
appeal from the disbursing officer or audi
for the property will be paid by the audi
tor. 1t has been the practice of the con-
troller, he says, to recognize the Commits
sioners of the District as an executive es-
tab1ishment and render them advance de-
cisionS when requested. If the Commits
sioners entertain any doubt in whom the
title should be placed they can consummate
the act by purchasing the property and
the controller will pass upon the payment
If the question is submitted to him. If
the disbursing officer is called upon to
make the payment for the purchase and
desires to have the legality of the pay
ment passed upon, the controller will do
so. The controller concludes, however, by
saying that he Is inclined to the opinion
that the question in whom the title should
be placed is one that should be determined
by the Attorney General He says:
The Controllers Views.
II am unable to see why there Is not as
much force in the contention that the Unit
ed States should take title to the property
described in the appropriation as should
the District of Columbia. The only reason
that could be suggested why either should
take title would be that each pays out of
it's individual moneys the purchase price
in equal proportions.
IF, on the other hand, the title ought to
be taken in the name of the Garfield Me-
mortal Hospital. or rather in the name of
its trustees. 1t seems to me that the gov
eminent is equally interested in seeing that
1t procures good title as If the title were
taken to itself. 1t would be an absurdity
for the government to pay out fifty thous-
and dollars. in order to increase the bene-
HClal eject OF a nOSpltal winch is re-
ceiving its bounty. as shown in your letter,
and not to see to the fact that it's bounty
was not wasted. 1t would be wasted If
a bad title were taken by the hospital to
the land.
LAS understand. 1t is not only the duty
Of the Attorney General to see that the
grantors have title to the property to be
conveyed but that the deed rendered is In
such language as to convey the title in
conformity to the law authorizing the pur-
chase.
For the reasons above set out 1t appears
to me that the Attorney General should be
requested to pass upon the question pre-
sented"