Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-12-11
MORROW Wins OUT
Continued from First Page.)

the site of the substation, exhausted and
performed?
In the case of Wilder VS.. United States.
. Court of Claims. 48S, the court held
that contract entered into by Wilder
with an officer of the United States, which
was subject to the approval of the quar-
termaster general, could not be- after such
approval. disapproved by him. the court
holding that the discretion of the quarter
master general, to approve or disapprove.
having once been exercised by him and
the contract approved. he could not ca
prlciously withdraw such approval. so as
TO curtail the time expressed for the
duration of the contract
common council cannot revoke an
ordinance designating the streets in
which a telegraph company may place
their poles, when the company has con-
formed to the conditions upon which the
designation was made and has expended
money in placing the poles.
In the case of the Delaware, Lacka-
wanna and Western Railroad Com
pany agt. the city of Buffalo, 65 Hun,
464, the overhead crossing of a railroa d
on street was assented to. subject to the
approval of the city's engineer and the
court held that the right to a crossing
is derived not from the city. but from
the legislature, and having become abso-
lutte by assent cannot be revoked by
any authority short of that by which it
was conferred.
"A site having been selected and hav-
Ing been approved by the Commissioners.
no power further remains in them to
question that site. They still have SUI
pervision over the character of the build
ing to be erected. and it may be neces-
sary for the defendant to submit it's
plans to the inspector of buildings for
his approval before erecting the substa-
ton.
THE character of the building how
ever AN dts erection. with or without a
permit, is matter entirely apart from
the selection of the site and its approx
al by the Commissioners, and as this
controversy has arisen over the site alone
] do not see that it is necessary to con-
slider further any of the questions pre-
scented In argument.
Being of the opinion that the Commits
sioners did approve the site selected, and
that they have power to revoke their
approval, and that there arc no good
grounds stated in the bill for the relief
prayed for by them. / will deny such re-
lief and dismiss the bill
No Surprise to Morrow.
mo, 1 am not a bit surprised at the de-
cision.' said Commissioner Morrow to-
day. when he had finished reading it and
when asked about his views. II have
been perfectly sure that the decision
would uphold the right of the railroad
company and / have never given the
matter moments thought from the day
the Commissioners placed it in the hands
of the court to decide.
cit must be understood that this de
cision In no way infers that the I4th ant
Water street site is more preferable fol-
the station than the one proposed at 18th
and Maryland avenue. When l differed
with the Commissioners at the time they
withdrew their approval of the 18th stree
site / did not base my objection upor
the question of the sites. but simply
upon the legality Observation-Disclosures the
Commissioners were within their rights In
revoking their approval, and whether the
railroad had a right to ignore their rev.
ocation.
Personally" continued Commissioner
Morrow, Il believe the 14th street site
Is the better OF the two, and l am con
WINGED that my contention will be realized
in time
Commissioners mcfarland and West
who favor the 9TH street site did no,
care to discuss the decision at this time
1t Is considered likely that an appea
will be made by the Commissioners.