The Washington times., 1913-12-07
REPEAL MAY END
PLAZA CONTENTION
Congressman Favor .Removing
Limit From Amount That
May Be Paid Each Year.

To eXpeditiously dispose of the legal
question involved in the prompt ac-
quirement of the ground for the ex-
tension of the Capitol grounds, a bill
or resolution probably will be intro
duccd in Congress repeating the clause
in the original act which limits TO
s5ooeoO the amount that may be paid for
condemning property in single year.
The matter is being discussed by sew
Crsl members of Congress and by the
prOpe rtyholdcrs involved, and their at
turneNs. In some quarters delay is
suggested until the opinion of the At
tnrney General reaches the President.
Upon the word conflict probably
will rest the finding of the Attorney
General. There is no questioning the
fact that the only law which authorized
the condemnation of property for the
extension of the Capitol grounds is to
be found in the act of June p, 1910.
which specifically limits the amount
that may be acquired in any one year
TO an area that the commission esti-
mates to be worth not more than 500 =
D0D.
Further. there is no questioning the
fact that at the same time the COM
mlsslon-compoSed of the late Vice
President Sherman, Speaker Joseph p.
Cannon. and Superintendent of Capitol
Buildings and Grounds Elliott Woods
requested the Attorney General to in
stitute condemnation proceedings. this
provision of law was in effect aSl that
all proceedings carried on in connec-
uon with the entire area were not only
without authority of law, but in viola
ton of its positive prohibition.
Findings Are Void
When the report of the commission.
signed by George TruesdelI, Michael l.
Weller, and Thomas ii. Mckee, was
presented to the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia on January %,
1913. it was still proceeding without
authority Of law, and its findings, plac-
ing the total value of the property in
volved, at sS,2o4, ,434.75, was without ef-
feet and void.
There is no questioning the fact that
Congress has had power TO repeal the
restrictive clause at any time, nor is
1t questioned that the sentiment of
members of Congress is favorable to
such repeal and the prompt settlement
OF the proceedings, but such action ap-
pears to have been overlooked The
TACT that there was a restrictive clause
seems TO have escaped the public atten-
uion until The Times. in its exclusive
story of last week, for the first time
acquainted its readers with the cause
OF the delay in the proceedings.
Opponents of Chairman johnson as
sert that the clause contained in the
sundry civil bill of June @, 1913, pro-
viding that "all laws or parts of laws
in conflict with the provisions of this
act are repealed" are not clear in what
particular the appropriation of $2,S23,-
si2.S5, which, together with the remain
ing balance from previous appropria-
tions, amounting TO $3.50, ,462. 4S totals the
amount of the award, is in conflict
with the provisions Of the act.
Blanket Provision Issue.
Some color is lent to their contention
by the provisions contained in the OPEN
ing clause of the same act which appro-
PIRATES the items enumerated for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1914" and
practically the only question the, De-
partment of Justice will have to decide
is whether this blanket provision which
appears in practically all appropriation
bills may be construed as covering the
point involved.
On the other hand, were 1t not that
the appropriations contained in the act
are made available for the fiscal year
1914, few would venture to suggest that
the appropriation of the whole sum, Ito
pay the amounts awarded by the court
commission under the statute" could be
construed as repeating specific limi-
tation as to the manner in which the
amount should be disbursed.
The very act upon which those who
belittle the point of law raised depend
Tor their justification provides that the
money is to be expended to mage pay
Tnents" under the statute"-the act
which limited the yearly expenditure to
500. 900.
While up to the present time the |