Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-03-04
JUDSON GETS BLAME
Defeated "Dome" Application,
lisner Told by West.
FIL|BeusTER is CHARGED
Baked Grant Of Permit by Prevent
ing Board Meeting.
SENATORS HEAR ABOUT IT
Counsel for Business Man Says Fair
Deal Was Denied-Engineer Com
missioner Defends Himself.
FILIBUSTER is CHARGED
SENATORS HEAR ABOUT IT


trict building to prevent action by the
board OF Commissioners on a building
application Of A. Lisner. proprietor of the
Palais Royal. was asserted before the
Senate District committee today by At
torney George w. Hazelton.
Attorney Hazelton appeared in behalf
of Mr.. Lisner. to ask special legislation
by Congress which will permit the pro-
prietor OF the PalAis Royal to add an
other story to his store, at 18th and @
streets. in the shape OF a dome. Permis-
sion had been denied by the District Com
missioners.
rs this an appeal from the decision OF
the Commissioners" Senator Martin
asked the attorney.
Moves. In q sense, 1t is replied Mr..
Hazelton. 1T is an equitable appeal to
have you give us what the Commission
ers have right and ought to give US.
Filibuster by Judson.
THE Engineer Commissioner. in a
sense. filibustered to prevent a board
Reconnaissance Vests word for 1t, for
he says the Engineer Commissioner per.
sistently worked to prevent a board
meeting"
Engineer Commissioner Judson, while
admitting he opposed granting the
building application, denied he had NIL
bustered to prevent the action OF the
board OF Commissioners.
Two OF the board, he pointed out,
constitute a quorum. The other two
Commissioners. who. 1t is claimed, were
in favor OF granting the application.
and taken action. 1t was not within
his power, he contended. to have pre-
vented board action on the matter.
The hearing before the committee was
on a bill ito regulate the height OF
buildings in the District OF Columbia .
missioners. to encourage the construc-
ton OF freproof structures and dis
courage the building of combustible
ones.
Committees Aid Invoked
Mr.. Lisner. with his attorney and
other representatives. appeared before
the committee to ask that an amend
ment be placed on the bill authorizing
Mr.. Lisner to place on top Of his store
q steel fireproof DOME" In accordance
with plans on file at tho ONCE OF the
District Commissioners.
The debate Of the Commissioners over
the application involved the definition
OF q dome" by the building regula
lions and the change OF that definition
when the new building regulations
were adopted some months ago.
According to the statements Of At
torney Hazelton. application for build
ing the dome was made under the old
building regulations and the plans for
the dome were made to conform to the
definition OF dome In the old regula-
tons. Mr.. mcfarland. then Commits
sioner. was in favor Of granting the
application and Maj. Judson was OPP
mi N
doubt
The question was referred to Corpo-
ration Counsel e. H Thomas. He held
that the Commissioners had the power
to grant the application. After that.
the attorney commended, Mr.. West was
in favor of granting the request
In the meantime. however, the new
building regulations were adopted, with
. new definition of q dome.
Ruled Out by New Board.
I'VE couldn't get a board meeting to
act on the matter" Attorney Hazelton
continued.
After the new Commissioners came
in. they had hardly drawn their first
breath when this application Of Mr..
Lisner came up. And a motion was
made and carried to deny the applica,,
structure did not conform to the ded-
milton OF dome"
BY that action. the attorney contend
ed. the definition of a dome in the old
building regulations was declared to be
illegal. That had been accepted for
eight years, and he maintained that as
the plans for the proposed structure
were made in accordance with 1t, the
Commissioners should have granted the
application under the old regulations.
A question Of the safety of the struc-
ture was raised. 1t was stated To meet
any possible objection on that score Mr..
Lisner had the present store and the
plans of the proposed dome carefully
gone over by builders and architects.
They pronounced the proposed structure
safe.
To furnish rooms for girls employed in
the store when they are resting or Ill. it
was explained. il the object OF the dome.
It has been found impossible. 1t was ex-
planned, to provide such accommodations
in any other way.
Ex-Commissioner West told the COM
mittee that he saw no reason why the
application should not be granted. In
fact. he thought 1t ought to be granted,
he said, as affording more and needed
Recommendations for girls employed In
the store and as making the structure
safer.