Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-27
LOCAL LEGISLATION
ACTION TAKEN BY THE HOUSE
LATE YESTERDAY.

After The Stars report closed yesterday
afternoon the House of Representatives,
sitting as the board of aldermen of the
District of Columbia, passed, in addition
to the police bill. a number Of other meas
ures Of local interest
The first bill called up was that intre-
duced by Representative MorreIl, provid-
ing additional facilities for the handling
OF mail at the union station. This meas
ure carries the Sims amendment, which
provides that after January 1, 1905 all
steam railroads In the District Of Column
bia shall be liable to the provisions Of the
smoke law.
Mr.. Morrell's Explanation.
Mr.. Morrell. In answer to questions by
Representative Stafford. said there were
no provisions In the bill authorizing any
new company to handle the mails. He
explained that the language ito provide
adequate facilities for handling mail, bag
gage and express" simply referred to fa-
clllties which are necessary for the
United States postal authorities. accord
ing to the statement made by General
shallenberger. the second assistant post
master general, to handle the United
States malls, for the reason that the facil-
tiles originally provided in the union sta
ton were not, as the work progressed,
found to be sufficient For this reason
the terminal company acquired the land
described in the bill, so as to give the
United States postal authorities the ac-
commodation that they desired. This SIM
ply allows the railroad company to acquire
a certain amount of ground adjoining the
new terminal station. The subcommittee
situation. The railroad companies today
own 90 per cent Of the ground that is nee
ossary. They have already purchased the
ground. 1t also grants them the privilege
49, Ill .tr -%,f,, I'll
streets, and in return for that the District
of Columbia Is saved all the money which
would have been claimed for damages by
reason OF the raising of the grade of these
streets. In other words, the present own
ers Of this property. who are now the
railroad companies, waive oil damages for
the raising Of the grade Of these streets"
The bill was passed without objection.
Extension Of M Street.
Representative Smith then called up tho
bill amending the act for the extension OF
NJ street cast to the Bladensburg road.
Mr. Morren explained that the opening
of the street had already been provided
for. In that opening there was proviso
that those who had dedicated would be ex-
empt from assessment for benefits. The
committee was very much opposed TO any
such exemption as that, and this BILL Mr..
Morrell said. strikes out that prov1so in
the original bill. In other words. all who
are benefited whether they dedicated their
property or not. viii be assessed for bene-
fits.
1.-THE courts" said Mr.. Morrell. "have set
aside the ve-dicts IN relation to the open
ing of this street on account of the mani
fest injustice OF the award of the jury. TO
my mind, It is one Of the most vicious prac-
tees tina. ever was enacted In the way OF
legfslation--namely. the giving an exemp-
ton from assessments for benefits for SIM
ply dedicating a piece of land through
which street was to run. 1t is absolutely
unfair to those who do not dedicate and
to the taxpayers of the District at large"
MI. Crumpacker's Question.
ut seems to me-" remarked Representa-
tive Crumpacker that 1t Is altogether
likely the gentleman's criticism of that
practice is just ono. but it seems TO me
that ought to have been made at the time
the original law was passed The law pro-
vided for the extension of this street and 1t
provided likewise that those who owned
lands through which the street was to be
extended should be exempt from the pay
ment of benefits II they dedicated their
lands TO the public. Now. many OF them
acted upon that and made dedlcauons.
Now. I understand you propose by law
to take from them the benefit that would
result from their dedication and charge
them with assessments notwitnstanalne
that fl. Docs the gentleman believe that
can be done. and have not vested r.gnts
now under that law?
II am OF the opinion" replied Mr.. Nor
rell that they would nave; y wonio a.
dedication han gone. whether they have
actually made this dedication or whether
the court would construe that the fact Of
that privilege existing In the law would
be notice to tho,n that they could take adj
vantage OF II. II was. however. tho
Thought OF the COMMITTEES that. In view q
the decision OF the court setting aside this
Un fcf ~ IA. In