Evening star., 1926-06-14
Refers to Organic Act.

Has there been any such change
in the government established for
this District as will take the present
case out OF the rule announced in
the Barnes case? But the act
OF June II. 1878. 90 Stat. l02. c. $780,
permanent form of government for
the District was established. 1t pro-
vided that the District of Columbia
shall remain and continue munich
pal corporation and that the
Commissioners therein provided for
should be deemed and taken as off,
GERS OF such corporation. Those
Commissioners. consisting OF two
persons. to he appointed by the
President. with the consent of the
Senate. and an officer of the En-
gineer Corps, detailed for that pur-
pose. were vested with all the
powers. rights. duties and privileges,
and all the property, estate and ef-
fects then lawfully exercised by and
vested In the Commissioners of the
District, including the power. among
others. to apply the taxes or other
revenues Of the District to the pay
ment of its current expenses. the
support of the public schools. the
Fire Department and the police, but
making no contract nor incurring
any oDilSdttoI otuSI lDdH SuCI as
were provided in that act. and should
be approved by Congress; to collect
taxes heretofore lawfully assessed
and due. or to become due. but
without anticipating taxes by selling
or hypothecating them; to abolish
Offices. consolidate two or more Off
ces. reduce the number of employees.
remove from Office and make ap-
pointments to any office under them
authorized by law
I'VE have made this extended
analysis of the provisions of the act
of 1873 because of the earnest con.
tention Of the counsel for the defend.
ant that while the District of Co
lumbia is still a municipal corpora
ton, under its present form Of gov
ernment 1t has not. as a municipal
corporation, the features involving it
in the liability under consideration.
The reasons assigned by counsel for
this contention have been carefully
considered. with the result that. in
our judgment. the municipal corpora
ton created by the act of 1873 is sub.
tect to precisely the same liability
for injuries to individuals, arising
from negligence of the Commission
ers or of the officers under them in
maintaining in safe condition. for the
use of the public. the streets, avenues.
alleys and sidewalks Of the city OF
Washington, as was the District un.
der the laws in force when the cause
of action in the Barnes case arose.
the Commissioners. having
full control Of the streets. are under
a duty to keep the public ways of
the city in such condition that they
can be used with reasonable safety.
Their neglect in that matter is the
neglect Of the municipal corporation
of which they are the responsible
representatives, although subject to
the paramount authority of Congress.
Because it was a municipal
corporation proper, as distinguished
from a corporation established as an
agency of the Government creating
it. this court held in the Barnes case
that it was responsible for such neg
ligence of it's officers having the care
of streets. avenues and sidewalks AS
resulted in personal injuries to indi-
yiduals. The source from which the
District obtains the means for main
tanning public highways In the city
is Of no consequence, so long as Con.