The Washington herald., 1913-01-25

within easy access of a large population.
II is eninently suited to park purposes
on account OF the hilly character and
the magnificent trees, which could not
be grown in many years. 1t is to-day,
although private property, used by many
persons as a park. and with the rapid
increase of population will certainly
prove OF the greatest value. The Com
missioners further believe that. IL not
purchased before being subdivided and
developed. its cost would be greatly in
creased. and. besides, many of the trees
will be cut down and the beauty i'm
paired. Very respectfully.
HENRY B. T. MCFARLAND.
President Board Of Commissioner. District Of
Columbia.
Hon ]. H. GaHinser chairman. Committee the
District Of Columbia United States Senate"
What the Commissioners foresaw, what
We all foresaw, has happened. There is
a fine commercial suburban property in
cidentally preserving small ravine now,
but the noble park of 100 acres that we
worked so hard to get for the National
Capital is gone forever with all its great
natural beauties.
Passing over some personal sneers at
myself. which are part of my reward for
working so hard to try to save to the
National Capital this park land. come
next to Mr.. Sims misleading statement
that I said that the land is now worth
two to four million dollars on account
of the rapid increase in value, but he
never told the committee that many
hundred thousands of dollars had been
expended in improving the western por-
ton of the land
I expressly did tell the committee of
the improvements referred to. But the
assertion that I told anybody that the
land had become worth two to four mil
lions is simply another of his misstate-
ments He Quotes me in that immediate
connection as saying before the House
Appropriations Committee in 1908 that the
land in 1908 was worth 81. 80 an acre, a
statement which I never made. AL ]
said to the committee was that I had
been Informed by Mr.. Charles ]. Bell,
one of the trustees of the tract. that II
was then assessed at $500 an acre Mr..
Sims rings the changes on his assertion
that l said the land was worth s1l. go an
acre. and SO claims that the dedication
of the ravine by the owners in their villa
tract project amounted to nearly 500,
900 worth OF real estate"
Member Had Interest.
After that Mr.. Sims says that I was
not candid or frank because did no,
was pending that a member of the House
had an interest in the smallest of the
three portions, including about two acres.
The fact is that I had more difficulty
in getting the option on that small tract
than on either of the others, because that
very member of Congress was the most
unwilling of all interested to let me have
il at what he held was one-half Of its
then value, In 1906. He would not al
low his trustees TO give the option until
/ he had been personally importuned. OF
course, ! referred Congress to Just what
had, the options with trustees for the
three separate portions of the tract. The
member of Congress did not want to sell
at the price, and was very glad when
the options lapsed. He Immediately sold
part of 1t for more than twice the option
price. Even Mr.. Sims has the grace to
say in this connection that the member
OF the House who owned part of the land
was offering to sell II 10 the government
through that option at a loss, which was
no discredit, II the facts had only beer
known"
Representative Sims then proceeds to
comment upon statements made before