Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-08-08
LAND CONDEMNATION
Motion for Removal of Certain
Commissioners
UNDER ADVISEMENT
HEARING BEFORE JUSTICE BAR
NARD TODAY.
Attorney Sinclair Says Rights Of Own
ers Are Amply Protected
The Arguments.


the District of Columbia today took under
advisement the motion made Friday. last
by certain owners Of land which will be
affected by the changes in the grade of
streets around the union station to revoke
the order OF the court appointing Messrs.
Charles A. Baker, George w. Moss and
John H. Walter as a commission to ap-
praise the damages resulting from the
changes Of grade. The motion was made
by several of the land owners. through At
torney5 J. J. Darlington and Leon Tobriner.
upon the ground that no notice was given
to them Of the application made by the
District Commissioners for the appointment
Of the commission.
When the case was reached before JUS
tice Barnard this morning Special Counsel
for the District A. Leftwich Sinclair made
an argument in opposition to the motion to
vacate the order appointing the commission.
He explained to the court that all exam
ination of the adjudicated cases would
show that even in proceedings taken for
the condemnation of land for public use the
commissioners or viewers to determine the
compensation to be paid to the land own
eEs- may be appointed without notice to the
owners.
Attorney Sinclair pointed out that in the
absence Of legislation providing for the
payment of damages resulting from
changes of grade, the District OF Columbia
would not be liable for the damages result
ing, and that, therefore. the union station
act giving damages, was an act of grace
and not one Of right. Mr.. Sinclair further
explained to the court that irrespective of
this fact, the interests Of the landowners
are amply protected by the act of Congress;
that the act provides that the commission
should be appointed by the court upon APP
plication OF the District Commissioners;
that 1t was made the duty Of the commits
sion. when organized to give thirty days
public notice In three newspapers published
In the city Of Washington of the time and
place of their first meeting, and that the
claimants were allowed sixty days within
which to file their petitions for the allow
ance Of damages.
1t was further argued by the special coun-
sci that the law did not make the appraise-
ment OF the commission final but that 1t
provided that II any person was dissatis-
fed with the appraisement OF the commits
sion. jury OF seven citizens should be
summoned to hear the claims anew. Even
the verdict Of this jury. Attorney Sinclair
pointed out. was not final for the reason
that the act further provides that the court
had the power to set the verdict aside for
good reasons and direct the summoning Of
another jury to appraise the damages &C
cruing to the property owners. A number
OF cases were cited by Attorney Sinclair
to sustain his position.
Concurred in Argument.
Attorney Sinclair was followed by Attor-
ney Henry E. Davis, who explained to the
court that he was In court as the repre-
sentative OF one Of the members of the COM
mission who is said to be Objectionable to
some OF the claimants. Attorney Davis con-
Cured In the argument made by Attorney
Sinclair. and said further in part:
IF the court is disposed to consider Dues
tons Of convenience. 1t ought to be con-
n he thp$
the motion would involve more danger than
Its denial. for how is the court to ascertain
who are the owners affected and what au-
thority has 1T to order a general notice by
publication and to provide for the pay
ment of the cost thereof, and how is it to
affect, by such notice, the rights of infants
and others under legal disability seeing
that no provision is made for proceeding
against such persons In the matter of ap-
pointing the commission? 1885,.
suppose the motion Is granted" con-
tnued Mr.. Davis, what Is to prevent every
property owner affected from hereafter say
Ing that, by having exercised its power of
appointment in the first instance the court
has exhausted that power, and that any
other commission than the one already an
pointed would be a tribunal without au-
thority. and what would prevent any tax
payer from arresting the payment of the
amounts awarded by application for an in
Junction upon the ground that the newly
constituted tribunal If such be constituted,
the exhaustion of its power?"
Question of Notice.
Mr.. Davis also made the point on the
question OF previous notice that not all
the parties affected would come before the
tribunal. as great many might be dis
suaoed from such a course by the fact
that Dement'S were also to be assessed by
the appraisers and the amount deducted
frnyy ta No
tained. and in some instances these bene-
nus would equal or outweigh the damages,
and the party complaining might find him
self at the loss of an attorneys fee for the
presentation of his claim This. he said
was probably In the mind of the leeisa
ture when the act was passed and the
notice to owners, which had been expressly
given In other cases. was purposely omitted
from the act.
Mr.. Leo Simmons addressed the court at
the close of Mr.. Davis argument He
explained that he represented a large num-
Der or the claimants and argued that the
motion made to revoke the order appointing
the appraisers should be overruled He
stated that the claimants were not entitled
to notice Of the application for the ap-
pointment of the commission, and that it
was not customary In land condemnation
proceedings to give such notice; that he had
had great deal of experience in such cases
notice was given the property owner be-
fore the appraisers were appointed Mr.
Simmons stated that he was satisfied with
the commission, as are several other at
torneys representing claimants who were
In attendance upon the hearing.
Mr.. Daplington's Argument.
Mr.. Darlington at this point presented an
argument in favor of the granting of the
motion to revoke the order designating the
commission. and cited several authorities
to sustain his position. Mr.. Darlington con-
tended that the correct practice in such
proceeding Is to require the giving of no.
tice to claimants before the commission was
appointed. Mr.. Darlington's remarks were
continuation Of the argument commenced
sby him Friday last at the time Of the
filing of the motion to discharge the COM
mission.
Mr.. Tobriner supplemented the argument
made by Attorney Darlington and referred
to authorities which he thought warranted
the court in entertaining the motion filed
by him and Mr.. Darlington, saying that
it was customary to give notice in such
cases and that the action of the court in
naming the three gentlemen to serve on the
commission was only In the nature of