Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-07-25
FEARS NOTHING
FROM AN INQUIRY
Market Company's Counsel
Says That Statements as to
1t Are Wide of Facts.
To the Editor OF The Star:


In the issue of your valuable paper Of
the ED instant appears statement OF
remarks said to have been made by
Representative Ben Johnson. chairman
OF the House of Representatives COM
nittee on the District of Columbia, con-
corning the Washington Market Com
pany and his purpose to investigate it's
affairs. This statement is so extravagant
and wide of the facts that 1t seems
necessary to correct it. Mr.. Johnson is
said to have stated:
First That the Washington Market
Company owes TO the District of Column
bia about s1.0o0.000 in back rent.
Second. That the company is now pay
ing $4,000 a year in dividends on an
Investment of 100000.
Neither of these statements is cor
rect, and I find il difficult to believe
that Mr.. Johnson made them. but it is
due to the community that the real
facts should he presented and / there
nearly forty years been of counsel for
the Washington Market Company, and
am familiar with a large part at least
OF it's affairs.
The statement imputed to Mr. John
son that the market company owes
back rent to large amount is based
upon the theory that it heretofore
should have paid $4,000 a year rental
al
paid since 1873. That there is no such
liability was judicially determined
more than thirty years ago. The facts
are as follows: The act of incorpora-
tion of the Washington Market Com
pany. approved May 90, 1870. granted
to that company for the term of ninety
nine years the lands between Louisi-
ana and Pennsylvania avenues on the
north, Il street on the south, 9TH street
on the east and 9th street on the west,
and provided that the company should
pay a rental therefor of $500 to the
city of Washington, to be expended for
the support and relief of the poor.
Reduction Authorized by Legislature
BY resolution Of the legislative as
sembly of the District of Columbia, ap-
proved August 23. 1871, the governor
was authorized to secure a reduction
from $4,000 to $4,000 of the annual
rental required to be paid by the COM
pany, and this was done.
In March, 1873, Congress, in an appro-
priation act, provided for the purchase Of
the interest OF the District of Columbia
III the city hall building in Washington
at the price of $4,000 and authorized the
governor and board of pubic wo. ks to
make arrangements to secure sufhcient
land fronting Pennsylvania and
Louisiana avenues. between 7th and 9th
streets TO be used for a suitable build
ing for the District Offices.
ThereupOn the governor and board or
public works entered into an agreement
with the Washington Market Company,
dated March Is. 1873. by which. among
other things, the market company agreed
to convey to the District OF Columbia the
land between 9TH and 9th streets, fronting
Louisiana and Pennsylvania avenues,
since used as a park.
Agreed to Reduce Rental.
In consideration of this conveyance the
District Of Columbia agreed to reduce the
rental for the land retained to $500.
Inc amount thus to be paid was fixed
by a consideration of the respective val
ues OF the land conveyed to the District
and retained by the company as there
tofore determined by the District as
SCISSORS for the purpose of taxation. as
Will appear upon reference to a message
from Co... III. ID. Cooke to the legislative
assembly, dated May IA, 1873, in which
he states thu. the agreement as finally
executed is believed to be just to both
parties" The Washington Market Conn.,
pany at once made its deed in compli-
ance Win the agreement. and 1t is con-
caded that from that time to the pres
ent it has promptly paid the 1880 per
annum which it agreed TO pay, as also
all taxes assessed against the land and
improvements.
In February. 1876, however, a report
of the Senate committee on the judi
ciary cast doubt upon the validity of
the agreement in question, and sug-
gested that this being invalid. the
market company owed the difference
between $500 and $4,000 per annum.
which is the proposition now reputed
10 have been advanced by representa-
tive Johnson.
Thereupon the District of Columbia
brought suit against the Washington
Market Company to recover about $of,-
600, the difference between the two
rentals, and took the position that the
board of public works on the one hand
and the Washington Market Company
on the other. was invalid.
The market company pleaded in de-
Tense the facts OF the agreement as
known 10 every one. and as shown by
plaintiff demurred. and the cause was
heard before the court in general term
upon the merits of the case.
Affirmed by Highest Tribunal.
1t was unanimously adjudged that the
governor and board of public works
had ample authority to make the agree
nent, that it was valid and that the
suit must fail The decision was made
in 1877 and the opinion was written
by Justice Hagner. The District OF
Columbia appealed 10 the Supreme
Court OF the United States, where.
April 8. 1883, the opinion of the court
below was unanimously affirmed tsee
District of Columbia against Washing
ton Market Company. lis L. S. 243.
III any weight is to be attached to the
decision OF the supreme tribunal OF