Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-04-22
POLICY OF THE HOUSE
Government Not to Pay for
Street Extensions.
Mr.. BABCOGK'S MOTION
IT WAS VOTED DOWN BY A
LARGE MAJORITY.
Opposition Voiced by Messrs. Cowherd,
Payne and Hemenway - The
Particular Case in Point.
Mr., BABCOCK'S MOTION

the ahuttfng property owners and the Dis
trict of Columbia. The matter came up in
connection with the consideration of con-
ference report on Senate bill 2134. to connect
Euclid place with Erie street. Representa-
tive Babcock, chairman of the House COM
nittee on the District Of Columbia, reported
on behalf of the House conferees that they
had been unable to agree with the Senate.
The latter body, complying with the earnest
request of the District Commissioners and
citizens of the District, has insisted this ses-
sion that in all bills of this character the
government shall stand it's share of the cost
placed upon the District.
In order to test the sense of the House to-
day Mr. Babcock moved that the House re-
cede from its position and agree to the Sem
ate plan, which would place one-half of the
cost Of street openings on abutting property
owners, one-quarter on the District Of Co
lumbia and One-quarter on the federal gov
ernment.
Mr. Babcock was careful to explain that
he made no recommendation in the matter,
but merely stated the proposition in order
that members could vote as they pleased.
Several speeches were made in opposition
to the motion to recede but none in ia
vor Of it. No one arose to argue the Dis
trict's side of the case. but. on the con-
trary, Representative Cowherd, a member
of the District committee, urged strongly
that the House maintain its position OF
putting the whole cost upon the property
owners and the District of Columbia.
A viva voce vote was taken. The chorus
of noes was so loud Mr.. Babcock said he
would not ask for division.
The Question at Issue.
In calling up the conference report Rep
resentative Babcock said that the question
at issue was one of the most important
matters before the District committees of
the two houses of Congress. 1t related to
the whole subject of opening streets in the
District at this time and In the future.
Older members of the House. he said, would
remember the passage OF the highway act
several years ago. Since that time great
many new streets have been opened. Each
bill providing for such extensions had st}p-
ulated that one-half of the expense should
be paid by the abutting property owners
and ope-half by the District of Columbia,
the general government having no part of
the expense placed upon it. Mr. Bah
cock said that the organic act of 1878 pro-
District should be borne by the general
government. The House, however, in the
past has, in the matter of street openings,
enacted in every bill that the government
should have no part in the Districts share
for street extension expenses.
Now the Senate has refused to concur
in any House bill based on the old PROPOSE
ton and maintains that in all bills under
consideration and to be presented In the
future one-half the cost shall be put upon
the property owners, one-quarter borne by
the general government and One-quarter by
the District of Columbia.
your committee on conference" con-
tinued Mr.. Babcock. felt. that on account
of the previous action of the House in such
matters 1t could not consent to the Senate's
rearrangement of the plan Of street open.
ings without first consulting the wishes Of
this body. In order to test the sense of the
House, now move. Mr.. Speaker, that the
House recede from it's position and agree to
the Senate bills, which entail division Of
the expense on the same basis as all other
matters relating to the government of the
District of Columbia.
Mr.. Cowherd's Opposition.
Representative Cowherd, the senior demo-
cratic member of the District committee,
was yielded time by Mr.. Babcock to speak
in opposition to the motion. Mr.. Cowherd
said he hoped the House would vote down
the motion to recede and non-concur in the
Senate bill. The precedent of having the
general government share in the expense
Of street openings, he said, once established,
would result in large expenditures from the
federal treasury. Mr.. Cowherd argued that
there was radical distinction between the
opening of streets and the expense of paw
ing and caring for streets after they were
opened. He did not believe that 1t was the
sense of the organic act Of 78 that the gov
ernment should buy from the people of the
District of Columbia street space and then
take care of these streets.
Mr.. Cowherd cited the case of street
extended and said that one property owner
received a consideration of $50, 600 for land
taken for the purpose Of opening the thor
oughfare. AS a matter Of fact, this mans
property, instead of being damaged by the
street opening, was worthless until the
street was cut through, and thus greatly
benefited by it.
If the United States should pay any part
of the expense of street extensions, Mr..
Cowherd declared that the cost Of the land
greatly increased because Of the fact that
a large share of the money would be COM
ing out of the general treasury. In a ma
jority of cases he thought the abutting
property owners should pay the whole cost
of street OPENINGS.
Mind you." said Mr. Cowherd. ''the ex-
penses under consideration are only those
connected with the condemnation of the
land itself, and not for the paving or caring
for the streets in any way One-han of
the latter expense does come from the gen.
eral government. do not think that the
government ought to pay single cent for
q foot Of ground taken for the purpose of
opening and improving streets. hope the
House will maintain its policy of ten years
standing, and not agree to the motion of
the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.. Bab-
cock"
Representative Babcock again addressed
the House, and said that he had presented
the matter simply for instruction. The bill
itself under consideration was unimportant
and the expense associated with the pro-
posed opening was small
Mr.. Hemenway's Question.
Representative Hemenway, chairman of
the House committee on appropriations,
asked II the motion OF Mr.. Babcock should
prevail would not change the policy of
the House. Mr.. Babcock said 1t assuredly
would. Continuing. he said it was ques-
ton simply as to whether Congress pro-
poses in the future to open streets in the
District of Columbia under the principles
laid down by the organic act of 1878, or
whether 1t should pursue its policy and
prectice Of the last ten years and insist
that the District of Columbia and abutting
property owners should pay all the expense
OF street opening. thus relieving the gem
eral government from any, share of the
hyirf3nn q yonypd arafy that the EY0sran