Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-10-18
FIVE SQUARES IN DISPUTE
Valuation Of Property South of
Pennsylvania Avenue.
OWNERS MAKE A PROTEST
Attorneys Call Act Authorizing
Condemnation Unconstitutional.
Court Takes Matter Under
Amusement.

Arguments against the confirmation Of
the awards made by the commission ap-
pointed to assess the value Of the five
squares lying south of Pennsylvania ave-
nue. between 18th and 18th streets were
heard today by Justice Stafford. presid-
ing in the District Court. Quite an array
of counsel was present: some participated
in the argument and others were inter-
ested spectators only.
Among the owners present were Orrin
G. Staples, Samuel G.. Cornwell. Matthew
Trimble, Stephen Gatti and J. H. w.
Kettler.
Corporation Counsel Thomas was in
court, but declared the District of Column
bia had no complaint to make with the
valuation placed by the commission on
the engine house property included in the
area of condemnation.
Calls Act Unconstitutional.
Attorney A. s. Worthington opened the
argument for the owners. Directing to the
confirmation of the award. He declared
the commissions valuations should not
be approved. because the act authorizing
the condemnation Is unconstitutional, in
that it leaves to the President the right
to say whether or not payment shall be
made to the owners of the property
taken over If the court should affirm
the award.
The act provides that IL President Taft
should think the public interest demand
ed it =" he should authorize the payment
for the purchase of the land. Attorney
Worthington urged that the effect Of
this was to put the owners to great ex-
pense without knowing whether their land
would be taken If directed by the court.
President Taft, he suggested, might
say that the drain on the Treasury hav-
ing been great lately, it would not be
desirable to increase it by S2,5O0.OOO for
the purchase of the land. He might
also decide that a more economical site
could be found elsewhere, or he might
decline to pay for the land without as
signing any reason.
Supreme Court Ruling.
The United States Supreme Court. he
urged. had on several occasions decided
that Congress has no power to compel
the courts to pass on a matter which was
left to an administrative officer for final
adjudication. be that officer department
head or even the President.
Counsel claimed that the government
has not followed the provisions of the
act of Congress in condemning the land.
He pointed out that no condemnation was
made Of public alley in square 226. and
that by reason thereof no title to that
property would vest in the United States
If the award is confirmed.
Since only the acquisition of the entire
area of condemnation is authorized. the
President could not direct the payment
of the awards OF the other properties,
any more than he could pay for one par
cell
The. remains of DIR. Stack have been
taken to the undertaking establishment
of Joseph Gawler, 1874 Pennsylvania ave-
nue.. Arrangements for the funeral are
being made this afternoon. 1t will prob
ably be held from the home of his brother,
George F. Stack, 743 I'd street. DR.. Stack
was unmarried. His mother, Mrs. Marga-
ret c. Stack, and two brothers, George F.
and Joseph c. Stack, survive him.
For the Government.
Attorney A. A. Brney, In charge of the
governments case, answering the con-
tention of Mr.. Worthington that the law
was unconstitutional because discretion
was given to the President as to the final
taking of the land. cited a number Of
authorities to the effect that condemna-
ton proceedings under the law of emf
nent domain might be instituted to deter
mine what 1t might cost to take a GER
tain site.
Subsequently. it was held, the govern
ment could take the land or drop the
proceedings at WILL
In reference to the alley in square
226. Mr.. Birney admitted that when
opened only a right of way was acquired
by the government. but claimed that
none of the present owners had any
title to the land covered by the alley,
and that the commission had found the
alley to be Of no value in the face Of
the right of way.
Attorney Beach, for the government, fol-
lowed in a short speech. He declared
that the objections as to the constitution
ality Of the act came too late and should
have been raised before the commission
was instructed
Against Confirmation.
Attorney Wilton J. Lambert spoke
against the confirmation of the award
He claimed that Congress by fixing the
amount Of the act implicitly bound the
commission not to value the property
beyond that figure. The resulting award.
he said. was on that basis.
Attorney William c. Sullivan. for the
property holders. commended that the tes-
timony as to value given by experts
for the owners had been disregarded
and the evidence offered for the gov
eminent adopted. He claimed the weight
of the evidence was against the conclu-
sion reached by the commission.
Attorney r. Ross Perry addressed him
self to the question of the discretion
given the President and concurred in the
argument Of Mr.. Worthington.
At the close of the arguments the court
took the matter under Amusement.