Evening star., 1921-06-01
VAULT SPACE TAX
N D. c. UPHELD BY
SUPREME C(U,,T
Right to Levy Assessment for
Use of Areas Under Side
walks Affirmed.
appellate BODY is
REVERSED IN FINDING

Cases Decided Were Those Against
r. P. Andrews Co., Saks & Co.,
and Abraham Lisner.
The United States Supreme Court
today upheld the contentious that the
District was right in assessing mer-
chants who used vault space under
sidewalks. The Supreme Court re-
versed the decision Of the Court of
Appeals and ahirmed that OF the Su-
preme Court of the District. which
had sustained the District Commits
sioners. The cases decided were those
OF the District Of Columbia against the
r. p. Andrews Paper Company. Saks 4
Co. and Abraham Lisner.
Justice Clarke handed down the de-
cision.
Concluding as we do," said Justice
Clarke: that the respondents were
mere licensees. we see no reason for
limiting the act of Congress as the
Court of Appeals limited it to con-
structions after the date Of the act
such an Interpretation of the act
would so obviously result in unjust
INEQUALITY meg that 1t should be adopted
only under stress Of imperative
language which we do not find in it.
Respondents Cite Rexulations.
Paper Company. and Abraham Lisner,
defended against the collection of the
assessments. claiming that their per-
mats 10 construct were in such form
as to create in each by contract a
vested right of property in the vault
deprived without due process of law
II they were required to pay the
rental To sustain this position the
respondents select from paragraph
three Of the building regulations.
supra. the provision that no charge
shall ba made for occupancy Of public
space by vault and that all permits
are subject to revocation when the
vault space is needed for any public
use and Improvement.
from paragraph three, supra, they
select the stipulation. that the vault
space shall be vacated when ordered
by the Commissioners or needed for
public use, and from the terms OF
.ne acceptances Of the permits the
p.osis,oh that the Commissioners
eao9s they may deem sncceisa1y. y sssIi
d. c. Contract csatesael.
Grouping these unrelated excernt. !,
eonstttats esssf sSs .Sso tbs y Ass 81
ehe District to leave the ,roeoon2erf AT
IN the undisturbed possession 81 Inc
vaults free Of charge Until such time
cause needed for some public sise ana
Improvement, and that since the Sct
OF Congress under which the disputed
rental IL imposed IL purely . reyenu 8
measure, which does not require the
surrender OF the space for any public
private use Of IT, IL IN invalid attempt
to deprive the respondents Of their
property without due process Of Law,
This statement Of the contention
OF the respondents 10 its own sufiicient
refutation. In form the permit 10 a.
OF the three clauses relied upon to
create the right OF property in the
streets are derived from the bufldinr z
regulations. which. as their name inn
plies. are designed to regulate the ma.
terials OF buildings and the manner Of
third clause is from the acceptance
OF the permits which are signed only
by the applicants.
When we add to this that the an
plications culminated and ended in nc
ceptances Of tho permits with tho un-
derstanding that the occupation Of the
vault space is permitted merely as an
accommodation to. tho owner Of the
abutting premises and that no right,
title ard interest 10 in my Way
waived or abridged thereby, except q
expressed In said permit. and the con.
dltions aforesaid. and that tho settled
rule OF law Is that tho grant Of rights
ano privileges In streets are strictly
construed SO that whatever il not un-
equivocally granted therein 10 with
held and that nothing passes in auch
by Implication. We cannot doubt that
the permits to tho respondents wers
mere licenses subject to revocation at
la hA - a.
ernmont Of tho District.
Rights From 1855 Application.
Tho snks q Co. case II. If possible,
even less substantial than the other
two. Whatever rights in the streets
this respondent has must bo derived
from the application made in 1854 for
q permit to ereot a building with adj
1acent vaults and from the presumption
o. tho permit arising from tho fact
that q vault was constructed and has
bean in use ever sinoa. No formal per-
NIT appears In the record, without a
permit presumed the vanit would be q
public nuisance. but no grant OF a per-
mansnt right In the street oaR be in.
use. -
The Court Of Appeals gives much
greater Signtdeanoo- to the opnolud-
Ing words Of tho accsptancss in Dor.
mtts ss3 and 2s4 than we oaa and in
tAoms Thefa arc coftalaiy no iinsi-
tstions upon the rights OF the public
in the peFmft itself. and the cendi-
t4onH OF aeoeptanees hero referred to
wefs apedal ngreements in, the eo-
esptaanas on the part Of the sptii-
oants to surrender the vault space
upon demand OF the domnaissioners
Tor special purpesas and to an e1tsat
desssnefsd whldas Va ,think not Ia
censiseeat with the larger .deeiara-
ton x'ta which the permit vas ae=
vault was Hasfs, aangmnaodati tioa N
the FecetveF OF the permit and did nat
eanatitufe any waiver % eay [ri9ht.
title ef Interest Of the public In the
Streets -"