Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-12-06
burban lines which act as feeders for the

city lines.
The bill In question was drafted by the
Commissioners. with the assistance of a
committee representing the various citi-
zens' associations of the District of Column
bia, and is believed to be fair both to the
railway companies and to the public. The
Commissioners would earnestly recommend
the passage of the bill during thea next ses-
sion of Congress.
The nth street extension, of the Ana
costa and Potomac River railroad to Ly-
decker avenue, author zed by act OF Con-
sress approved July I, 1902 has just been
completed and cars are in operation
thereon.
Wharf Property.
BY an act of Congress approved March 80,
1889. the Commissioners were given charge
and control of all wharf property belonging
to the United States or the District of Co
lumbia with the exception of the banks OF
the Potomac river between the arsenal and
n street south and a portion of the shore
line in the flushing reservoir at the loot OF
nth street west BY said act the commas
sioners were also given authority to lease
this wharf property for periods not exceed
ing ten years. all rentals collected to be
paid into the Treasury, one-half to the credit
of the United States and one-half to the
credit of the District of Columbia.
This act was passed prior to the decision
of the United States Supreme Court In the
Potomac flats case, which was to the effect
that the United States held title TO all the
land lying south of Water street between
the Arsenal and the Long Bridge. Since II
was decided that this property was United
States property, the Commissioners have
leased this frontage under the authority OF
said act. The amount of rental received
from this source is about $1,000 per annum
The Commissioners are also authorized by
Congress, by an item contained In the DIS
trict appropriation act for the fiscal year
ending June 80 1903. to lease, for periods
not exceeding one year, the public space
bordering James Creek Canal; all reve-
Treasury, one-ha.t to the credit of the
United States and one-half to the credit of
the District of Columbia. The greater part
of this frontage has been leased, and the
annual rental derived from this source is
about 81 600
The Commissioners have also leased the
foot of two streets in the city of Washing
ton, namely, Q street southeast and G street
northwest, and also the foot of Both street
in Georgetown they having been advised
by the corporation counsel that this is wharf
property under their jurisdiction.
The condition of the wharf property along
the Washington channel is very bad. Most
OF the structures are wooden wharves ana
buildings in bad state of repair. The
stone wall existing along the bulkhead line
Is also in very dilapidated state, in some
places having fallen down entirely The
farbor is also in need of dredging, In order
that it may be used to the best advantage.
The Commissioners recommend that an
appropriation of $500 be made for the pur-
pose of preparing survey and plat for the
Improvement of this frontage. They invite
attention to the report of the wharf COM
mittee having direct charge of the leasing
of these wharves, as to the necessity for
this Improvement.
Anacostia River Front.
The Commissioners would invite the at
tention of Congress to the unsettled ques-
ton of the title to the water front along
the Anacostia River Eastern Branch.
The old maps of the city of Washington APP
pear to show a Water street along this
frontage similar to that which extended
along the Potomac River front of the city.
AS it was decided in the Potomac Flats case
that the title to all land south of Water
street on the Potomac river front was in
the United States, it would seem that the
United States has similar rights on the Ana
costa River or Eastern Branch frontage of
the city. This question, however. was not
before the court in the case above men
toned. and in consequence the status of this
frontage has never been judicially deter
mined.
The Commissioners recommend that
ton be taken in this similar to that
taken in the Potomac Flats case, namely.
that the Attorney General be directed to
institute proceedings for the purpose of Ie-
termining the question of title
Bonds and Retents on Contracts.
The act of Congress providing a perma-
nent form of government for the District of
Columbia, approved June IL. 1878, requires
that all contractors for the construction,
Improvement, alteration, or repairs of
streets avenues, highways, alleys, cutters,
sewers and all work of like nature. shall
furnish bond in penal sum not less than
the amount of the contract, and that con-
tractors shall keep new pavementS or other
new works in repair for a term of five years
from the date of the completion of their
contracts. The Commissioners believe that
this provision of law should be amended.
In their opinion they should be given dis
raj in flSi fhn mint nf 6nrl
tracts, provided that 1t shall not be less
than one-quarter of the estimated amount
of the contract. Bonds on contracts are
now almost invariably furnished by bond
Ing or surety companies, who charge the
contractors premium for the risk The
District of Columbia, a matter of course
pays this premium In the prices bid for the
work, and as there Is no reason why the
bond should equal the amount of the con-
tract, a saving could be made to the Dis
trct by reducing 1t.
In regard to the retent for five years the
Commissioners would state that In con-
tracts for pavements they believe this re-
quirement good one; but they believe it
should be limited to pavements only In
other classes of construction such as
sewers. bridges ETC., they believe that a.
retent should be held only for one year as
1t Is the experience of the engineer depart
ment that on all work of this nature auy
defects in construction will develop within
this period. There is no doubt that the Dis
trict of Columbia pays interest on the por-
is thus held up for five years in the Treas
ury; and the requirement of retent debars
certain bidders from competition in that If
they bid on large number of Jobs a large
percentage of their capital is tied up so
that ii can not be used
Water Main and Sewer Assessments.
BY an act of Congress approved April q
l1i' change made in the method of
Ievying assessments for water mains and
service sewers. Prior to that time half the
actual cost of laying service sewers was
assessed against abutting property where
the sewer was IL inches in diameter or I'M
der but where ii was of larger size no
assessment was levied. although the prop
erty abutting the larger sewer received the
same service. The new legislation how
ever. provides that an assessment Of 81 per
linear front foot should be levied against
property abutting any service sewer there
aIter laid In analogy to a similar system
OF assessing abutting property s125 per
'front.' foot for the laying OF water mains
by this means all property that is hereafter
served by sewer will pay an assessment
therefor whether ii abuts on a large sewer
or a small one.
The rate of 81 % per front foot for water