The Washington herald., 1908-02-09
Proposed Laws Contrary to
Decision Of Courts.
CITIZENS EXPRESS WEAKNESS
senate and House Bills Declared to
he Shifting of Plain Duty by the
Government - Stated that work
should BE Done by Contract by
the Municipal Authorities.

pressive object lesson In the utter in
ability of the municipal government to
| cope with snow and ice on the sidewalks
/ of the city streets.
The Commissioners and Congress have
been experimenting with this problem
pretty much ever since the enactment of
the organic act Of 1873. and appear TO be
no nearer the solution Of the question
than at the beginning.
Before the present Congress are two
bills dealing with this subject They have
been introduced in both Houses, have
been referred TO the appropriate commit
tees, and are understood TO have the sane
ton of the District Commissioners. One
OF these bills was introduced in the Sen
ate by Mr.. Gallinger. and Is known rs
Senate bin 5025 II deals with the re-
moval of dirt. gravel sand. and other
obstructioEs from the paved sidewalks and
alleys of the District of Columbia. House
bill 1871, introduced by Representative
smith, is Identical with it,
Give Power to Commissioners.
Both bills empower the Commissioners
to do the work OF removing the desig-
mated distractions. including snow and ice,
and levy a tax upon the adjacent property
to cover the cost OF the work. collectihle
as other taxes. The law empowers the
Commissioners 20 make all needful rules
relative 20 carrying into effect the law.
and it may be fairly assumed that resi-
dents who do not desire to be taxed for
the removal of snow and ice would be
given opportunity to do the work II is
understood to be the purpose OF the Com
missioners to use this law against non
resident owners Of property and recalci-
trant citizens who have not the proper
public spirit 10 clear off the sidewalks
in front of their property.
The second proposed law is Senate bin
5OS6 and Rouse bill 1870, both Identical |
They provide that the tenant occupant, |
or owner Of property SHAH be allowed four !
hours Of daylight after a snOwstoTm In /
which to remove snow and ice Then |
the District government is authorized 10 |
step in, clean the debris away, and assess |
the costs against the property.
similar TO Other Laws.
These proposed laws are, IN their main /
provisions. similar to those on the statute /
books which have been declared uncon- I
stitutional by the DISTRICT courts. In the /
celebrated case of Holtzman against the /
United States, under the act Of March T. /
1897 the Court Of Appeals Of the District
pronounced upon the principle involved /
in these proposed laws by saying that the /
law which prescribed these things was Of |
doubtful validity and absolutely meaning |
less IN penal statute. when It is re-
membered that the sidewalks IN the city
OF Washington do not belong 70 the ad- /
tacent property. but that the title to them /
is IN the United States"
The court comments upon the anomaly |
Of the government trying TO force the
citizen 10 clean off its property and taxing /
them IL they do not do IT,
1t is a well-known fact that the gov
ernment not only owns tho sidewalks.
streets, and parkings IN front Of prop
erty. hut exercises ownership therein.
The government presCTibes the width Of
the parking, it defines the character of
the sidewalk, lays it, and inspects il, to
see THAI il is done right.
Governs the Parking.
The government prescribes the height
Of the fence or hedge surrounding the
parking. and says what may be planted
there. The tenant may plant the parking
to grass. shrubs. and flowers. but may
not exercise his will 10 grow vegetables
or garden truck there. As a fact, there
fore, the courts have consistently held
that the municipal government cannot
enforce tax levied against the abutting
property for cleaning of snow
In like manner an enforcement Of the
far fvfr !
or occupant to clean of snow and ice is
OF doubtful validity. and always has and
always viii result in leaving the obstruc-
tiOns upon vacant lots, whether OF resi-
dents or nOnresidents, and in the past has
resulted in leaving the sidewalks in front
Of most OF the government reservations
uncleaned, as they are I'm all parts of the |
city at this moment, except where the
property may be occupied by servants Of
the government, who clean off the walks
as other tenants do.
Law Bears UnequaIIy.
Further on in the same decision the
Court of Appeals. in commenting on the
unequal operation OF the law in its han
ding Of citizen. that it could catch and
fine or imprison. and a nonresident owner
who could not be reached at all, says:
and the whole act is open to the grave
objection that it is unequal in its opera
ton, falls TO reach the nonresident own
ers of vacant land. and unoccupied prop
erty, and makes no provision for the re-
moval of snow and ice from the side
walks in front Of the squares and open
places, and other property Of the United
States.
A prominent resident of Washington
yesterday made the following comment
upon the proposed legislation
"Of course We all want clean sidewalks,
and I think we would get them II the
work was contracted for by the city au-
thorites, and paid for out Of the general
fund, while under any law which they
attempt to pass. or may pass they win
get some sidewalks clear. and many. espe-
Cially those OF nonresident owners will |
not be touched.
Proposed Jaw Meaningless.
Their proposed law says that the Com
missioners shall clean the walks in front
Of the property Of delinquents and assess
the cost against the property, hut that is
the Identical language which has been
used in all their snow laws, end II Che
tax books are examined. 1t viii be found
that it was a rare occurrence when such
work was done, and the tax levied. All
those that were placed against property
were cancelled. because declared uncon-
and the same would be the
case again. So of course, no work on the
line of taxing the property would be done.
because the Commissioners know the de-
cisions which have been rendered as we'll
as I do.
Would EIeet Facts in Manly Way.
1T seems too bad that our Commits