Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-11-01
ACT TO BE INTERPRETED
CORPORATION COUNSEL no EX-
PLAIN SUBDIVISION LAW.

BY an order of the Commissioners, ap-
proved today. Corporation Counsel E. II.
Thomas will be called upon to prepare an
opinion concerning the exact meaning of
the act whereby the plan of streets In any
subdivision in the District is recorded. The
purpose In view is the determination by
the authorities of the question whether or
not responsibility exists for streets which
are such in name only and have never
been opened.
The case in point was brought to the at
tention of the Commissioners by f. C. Cats
of 6O4 + street northwest in a spicy COM
munication concerning the condition of a
bridge on JSth street northeast. The bridge
IL seems, lies between the subdivision of
Deanwood Heights and Central Heights
and ever since July 5, when a severe
storm tore IT from its moorings, the struc-
ture has been in dangerout condition. Mr.
Cats complained of the condition of the
bridge soon after the storm. but was in
formed by the Commissioners that they
had no jurisdiction in the matter. Now. he
writes: If you have no Jurisdiction, it
seems strange to me that you have right
to grant privileges Of putting up signs and
of electing electric light poles along these
streets. There must be something done on
this bridge and at once" After this the
whole question was referred to Inspector
Bradshaw of the engineer department for
examination and report
Inspectors Report.
In his finding Inspector Bradshaw wrote
In part as follows: 1T appears that the
subdivision creating the street in question
was ordered for record in the office of the
District surveyor May 30, 1900, In pursuance
of the act OF Congress approved August u,
1888. regulating the subdivision of land in
the District of Columbia. This act of the
Commissioners, In conformity with the
statute, may constitute an acceDtance. car
rying with it all the duties and RESPONSE
bilities respecting highways in general
whether thoroughfares or not.
The opinion OF the corporation counsel
has not been given Interpretation section
of said act. wherein it is declared
that all spaces on any duly recorded plat
of land thereon designated as streets ave
nues or alleys shall thereupon become pub
lie ways = and as such be under the
protection of the laws and ordinances I'm
force applicable TO public roads out of said
city In consideration of the principle that
the District. before 1t can be made liable
for failure of maintenance of its public
ways, must be charged with actual or con-
structive knowledge OF defects therein and
of the practical impossibility of establishing
a patrol that would keep the authorities
informed more especially where the evil
dence OF what is the public way does not
exist as, | am informed Is the case here
II Is suggested that the street In question
may not be a public way in the sense of
those that Congress has appropriated
money to improve and upon which work
has been done in pursuance thereof, and
that the act does not intend to impose
the burden which It's language seems to i'm
ply.
for an opinion defining the duties and re-
sponsibilities of the District in this rela-
ton. In the meantime there would seem
to be no objection to the writer (Mr Catts)
removing the bridge: or, II II can be done
without committing trespass, to the Dis
trict doing It,.