Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-11-07
AFFECT PARTY WALLS
ISSUED IN 17o1 BIZ
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON.

REGULATION ISSUED IN 1871 By
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON.
The District Commissioners have directed
Corporation Counsel Thomas to determine
whether the building regulations regarding
party walls, as approved and promulgated
by President George Washington In 1901.
are still legal and operative. There are two
features in the Interpretation of these reg
ulations which will have to be settled. One
Is whether or not the authority delegated to
federal officer by President Washington
is transferred to District officer. in the
present instance the building inspector; the
other, whether the rights OF private prop
erty owners were intended by the regula-
ton to be subjected to any encroachment
on the part of the building Inspector in en-
forcing the laws of his Office
This question has been brought up numer-
GUS times In the past by lawyers and prop
erty owners, but. according to officials Of
which definitely settled It, and although the
question has been previously referred to
corporation cOunsels Of the District they
have never clearly defined the question at
issue.
The present building regulations have
been subjected to numerous changes in the
last century, but 1t has always been con-
sidered by the Commissioners and others In
authority in the District that George Wash
ington's edict regarding party walls is still
in operation.
Section Quoted.
The section Of the building regulation
involved in the controversy is as follows:
That the person or persons appointed
by the Commissioners to superintend
buildings may enter upon the land Of any
person to set out the foundation and reg
ulate the walls to be built between party
and party as to the breadth and thickness
thereof, which foundation shall be laid
equally upon the lands Of the persons
DetWeen whom such party walls are to be
thickness determined by such person
proper, and the first builder shall be re-
lmbursed one moiety of the charge Of
SUCH party wall or SO much thereof as the
use of before such next bidder shall any
ways use or break into the wall, the
charge of value thereof to be set by the
person or persons SO appointed by the
Commissioners"
Point at Issue.
The part Of this section Of the regula-
tons which gives rise to such-doubt and
speculation, and which calls in question
the authority Of the building inspector, as
a representative Of the present Board Of
Commissioners. in matters pertaining to
party walls is the reference to the Com
of the District who are students of mu-
n1cfpal laws, and 1t has always been con-
tended by members of the bar, that the
commissioners" referred to in this regu-
lation mean a special commission Of three
men appointed by President Washington
in 1871 to survey and lay out the city with
his approval and that the term has abso-
lutely no reference to the present Board
of Commissioners. 1t is further con-
tended that this fact alone should clearly
demonstrate that the present Board Of
Commissioners Of the District, under this
regulation, which is the only one regard
ing party walls now in existence, have no
authority to interfere with the rights of
property owners regarding the question
of party walls.
Legality Discussed.
The introducing Of this question over
party walls was brought up this time by a
letter to the Commissioners from At
torneys Tucker & Kenyon. Their COM
munication dealt with the legality of the
regulations governing party walls in con-
nection with the proposed construction Of
a building at 915 Louisiana avenue north
west.
In the proposed erection of this building
the party wall was questioned and when
the matter was referred to Building 1nspec-
tor Ashford he informed them that mas
much as their party wallis rights were dis
they should pay for their rights, but he
never threatened to revoke the permit for
the proposed building II they did not COM
ply with this suggestion, as stated in
morning paper.
However, the writer's of this letter asked
the Commissioners to call a public hearing
in order that the question Of party walls
might be thoroughly discussed and the
rip M II.
1ation could be more definitely determined
and made clear to the latter. The corpora
ton counsel has said, however, that there
is no clear authority in the building inspec-
tor to revoke permit already issued and
acted on in this case, which in his judg-
menu will justify the revocation thereof.
Inasmuch as the building Inspector, act
ing upon what he considered his authority,
has heretofore made 1t his duty to deter
mine the market value of the rights desired
by each party in cases of disputes over
party wall, and the repeated claims of APP
plicants for building permits That he has
no such authority and the settlement of
such cases should be private matter, the
opinion of the corporation counsel asked
for by the Commissioners will be looked for
with much interest by District officials and
business men and property owners.
Authority as Trustee.
In explaining the adoption Of the building
regulations which were promulgated by
Gen. washington, shortly AFTER ne became
President an official of the District said
today that dozen or SO Of men owning the
property which the District Of Columbia is
now situated on formed into a body and
appointed President Washington as their
trustee and turned over certain amount Of
land to him upon which the city was first
laid out. They gave him the power to
make and plan the federal city as he saw
fit. However. this was done with the un-
derstanding that in laying out the streets
and blocks for the city the streets should
belong to the city and that every other
block, according to the original plans,
should go to the city and the remainder Of
the blocks be divided among those who do
mated the land. To carry out this plan
Washington appointed this commission of
three to attend to the details Of mapping
out the city, which was to be done under
his personal supervision. The members of
the commission were David Stuart, Daniel
Carroll and Thomas johnson.