Evening star., 1948-02-25

Director of Publicity, Democratic National
Committee.
Sidewalk Public Responsibility?
To the Editor Of The Star:
Anent the recent letter of c. r. Tisdale con.
cerning snow and ice on sidewalks, may
fourth generation Washingtonian submit few
remarks?
own my own home in this District on
which I pay real property tax In addition
(oelleye 1t or not) pay a District income tax
and personal property tax.
During the recent bad weather the sidewalk
IN front Of my home remained coated with
snow and ice until rain and warm weather dig
solved 1t. I never have attempted to clear 1t OH
and do not intend to do so.
My position is simply this: As q matter Of
principle and common justice, I do not feel
oolgated to clear 1t OF. My property extends
to the building line. From the building line to
the front fence is my" yard; then comes q
strip OF pavement known rs the Sidewalk" re.
served for public pedestrian trafnc from the
outer edge Of the sidewalk to the curb is the
parking" narrow strip Of earth containing
tree and IRE plug; from the curb to the op-
posite curb is the street reserved primarily
for vehicular traffic. The whole constitutes a
highway" Of the District of Columbia. The
fee title Of the whole is In the United States
and the control Is vested in the District Com
missioners.
have no more right to control trafnc over
that sidewalk or to change the character OF its
paving than have to cover my" yard with
cement. or to erect any type of fence DESIRE
or to chop down the tress Iii the parking, or
to dig up the middle OF the street. why, then,
should be required to remove accumulations
Of ice and snow from that portion of the public
highway. known as the sidewalk? ~ 'oN d1'~
I have no peculiar interest in that sidewalk
As matter of fact, seldom use it, except
to drive my car across It, 1t is true that when
it was laid, many years ago, 1t was considered
benefit" and one-half of the cost was as
sessed against my property and every other
piece Of property on the block. The assess
ment against my property promptly was paid
by my father. who was then the owner of the
house.
What the Law. Says.
The answer to Mr.. Tisdales specific question
as to the existence Of q law covering this situa-
ton is this: There is such q law-the Act of
September 16, 1922 az Stat. s45), contained in
Chapter 8, Title 7, D. c. Code, 1910. This law
was the last Of series of clumsy attempts on
the part of Congress to shift to the property
owners Of this District q purely public duty.
The prior acts were the Acts of March 2, 1895
(2s Stat. 5000, March a. 1897 t29 Stat. 60O and
February. 10, 1904 33 Stat. 1O. Prosecutions
under those acts were promptly thrown out by
our Court Of Appeals on various grounds. See:
Holtzmann '. d. c., il App d. C, 454, and
Mcclure " d. c., a App. d. c. ~. Likewise,
an attempt by the Commissioners to accomplish
the same result by means of q municipal ordi-
nance was blocked in the cases of Coughlin Y.
D. c., IS App d. C. 251, and Lee v. d. C., IS
App. D. G. 388.
The present act provides, in substance, as
follows: 1t is the duty Of every person in
charge OF any building or lot within the fire
limits" of this District, within eight hours Of
daylight after the ceasing to fall of snow or
sleet, to remove or cause to be removed such
snow or sleet from 30 much of the sidewalk
as Is in front OF or abuts on the building or
lot (Sec. u. II such accumulation cannot be
removed without injury to the sidewalk, it is
then the duty Of the person in charge OF the
building or lot to make such sidewalk reason
ably safe for travel by sprinkling sand or ashes
thereon (Sec. ~. 1t Is likewise the duty of the
District Commissioners, within the same period
of time, to remove snow and ice from sidewalks
in front of and adjacent to all public buildings,
squares, ETC., owned or leased by the District,
or to sprinkle with sand or ashes If the ac-
cumulation cannot be removed without damage
to the sidewalk (Sec. ~. It Is likewise the
duty of the director Of the National Park Serv-
ice, within the same period of time, to take
similar action with respect to sidewalks In front
Of and adjacent to all buildings owned or leased
by the United States, except the Capitol
grounds and the Library Of Congress (Sec -.
In the case Of privately owned buildings and
lots, II the person in charge does not remove
the accumulation, or make the sidewalk safe
for travel, as required by the act, 1t Is the
duty of the Commissioners To do 20. and the
expense is to be certified to the corporation
counsel, who is directed to sue to recover from
such person In charge the amount OF such
expense, together with penalty not exceeding
$2s and costs (Secs. 5, o..
Not Equipped TO Obey Law.
do not have . spade or shovel in my home,
much less do keep . supply Of sand on hand.
Nor do maintain . supply of ashes, since
my home is heated by oil II the accumulation
may be removed without injury to the sidewalk
(Which apparently am to decide 1T my own
risk, am certainly not going to purchase
spade and shovel and remove 1t myself. nor
am going to hire any one to, do 1t for me. II
the accumulation cannot be removed without
injury to the sidewalk, am certainly not going
to scurry about in the middle Of winter to try
to purchase sand or ashes.
am aware that statutes and ordinances OF
this type have been held constitutional in
various States However. they have likewise
been held unconstitutional by the highest