Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1915-10-25
MR. MCFARLAND DEFENDS HALF
AND HALF PLAN BEFORE JOINT
SELECT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS

)FCONGRESS
and up to 1885 they had brought S741,-
024.45. which Indicates that II they had
been properly managed the general
improvements Of the city might have
been carried on from the beginning:
The money was chiefly used for United
States buildings and Improvement Of
| their neighborhood
Tn the Van Ness case, Pet, 232, the
United Supreme Court squarely decided
in an opinion by Justice Story that the
United States had an absolute, uncon-
ditional fee simple in the streets and
public squares Of the city under the
conveyance by the original proprietors.
There psnt c was elaborate argument by emit
ward Chief Justice of the United States,
Tor Van Ness. and Daniel Webster and
william Writ and Attorney General
serrian on the other side: The case of
smith VS.. Washington, % How, 1875,
decided In 1857, which has been quoted
as modifying the opinion in the Van
Ness case. did not pass upon the Van
Ness case or the question involved in
smith tha w.. case; has repeatedly approved
me Van Ness case. See Steamboat
Company case, 100 U. S., e72. and Nor
ris ,, vs.; United States, 174 U. s.. 1919.
| the
United States could close or sell any Of
the streets and reservations in tho
original city Of Washington. As Rep
T Te e - GARFIELD said in the House
They lthe fathers) went even
further: They went So far as to ar
range that the fee simple Of tha streets
OF the Federal city should be exclusive
~ ana only in the government And so
far as know 1t Is the only city on the
globe that owns tho fee simple to
every foot Of the streets in It, .
We could build block Of buildings all
the way from the western front Of our
Capito! to the Treasury, filing Penn
sylVania avenue from side to side. II
we chose to do so. because we own
every foot of the ground
| Decisions of the courts and declara-
| tons of public men are quoted in our
brief to show the supreme control of
Congress without participation by the
District residents. and the fact that
Congress exercises Its power primarily
in the interest of the United States and
also that the District residents have
not the rights of residents of states,
political or juridical. Without amend
ment to the Constitution the District
cannot be represented by any one with
vote in either Senate or House No
District man can aspire to the presi-
dency or vice presidency. or even to
the electoral college. Practically none
can hope to sit on the Supreme bench.
ment are discouraged. Senator Gal
linger Is quoted as saying in the Sen
ate last winter:
I've discourage all efforts to es-
here. Many such attempts have been
withdrawn upon representations that
some of us have very urgently made
Words of Representative Borland.
And also Representative Borland is
quoted as saying In the House at about
the Same time:
1T is entirely unlikely that Con-
gress would tolerate manufacturing
districts here. with the massing of
industrial population. the danger of
but few real estate agents could pos
sibly profit by the establishment of
manufacturing industries here. In all
other respects 1t would be a distinct
and irreparable disadvantage. Wash
ington should become the center of the
nations artistic, literary and scientific
life
THE stringent provisions Of the anti
smoke act, February a q 1892 and the
1910. restricting the height Of private
buildings throughout the entire Dis
trict of Columbia, expressly excepting
buildings owned by the United States
or the District, are in line with the
control which President Washington
exercised over buildings in the be-
ginning.
Those who might grant that because
Of it's peculiar character the United
States should contribute literally to
the expenses of the original city of
Washington sometimes claim that
there is no such obligation as to the
rest of the District Of Columbia. They
forget that it was the District which
became the seat of government and
was founded in 179091, and that it
was not until May 3. 1902. that the
city of Washington was incorporated.
ton there may have been at the be-
ginning between the District and the
city, they are now coterminous in fact
and in law. The Boundary street of
old Washington became Florida avenue
years ago because the name had be-
come a misleading misnomer.
i Act of February FL, 1871.
The act of February 81. 1871. Great
ing the so-called territorial form OF gov
ernment, practically extended the city Of
Washington over the entire District. and
this was indisputably done by subsequent
legislation. The act of August 81. 1888.
provided that no future subdivision OF
I land anywhere In the District Of Column
bia outside the old city OF washington
and Georgetown should be recorded. 'un-
less made In conformity with the general
plan of the city Of Washington And
then, March 2, 1893. was enacted a much
needed act to provide permanent sys-
tenn of highways in the District outside
of the old city, and that after the adop-
ton of the new plan under 1t Of highways
conforming to the plan Of the city Of
Washington no further subdivision of any
land outside the old city should be record
ed unless in conformity to tho map Of
the plan.
THAT map. the fourth and last sec
ton Of which was filed May Is, 1900,
extends many of the principal avenues
of the original city Of Washington to the
District line, and provides for other new.
great avenues. and in all other respects
manifests the will of the nation that
George Washington's plan shall embrace
the entire District of Columbia. We
say in the brief:
Insured Proper Development.
"'This act of 1893, as thus carried into
effect, was a necessary and splendid pro-
ceeding for the proper development Of
the National Capital. But for it the
original city would have been 'cribbed,
cabined and confined" by surrounding
belt of subdivisions, with narrow streets
fitting in neither with the existing city
streets and avenues nor with one an
other. Numerous such subdivisions had