Evening star., 1948-10-28
Devious REASONING

Devious Reasoning
A curious decision has come from the
solicitor of the Interior Department. If
upheld it would end local control over all
Fairgrounds and recreation areas pur-
chased with local tax revenues since 1924,
vesting such control with the National
Park Service. It would, moreover, nullify
one of the chief functions of the National
Capital Park and Planning Commission
And it might affect the Board of Educa-
tion'S jurisdiction over few schools
located on property acquired by the District
under terms of the CapperC Cramton Act
of 1924
General U. S. Grant, Sd, chairman of
the Park and Planning Commission, has
written a vigorous dissent. In fact, he
makes mince-meat of the tortured legal
iSms supporting the Interior Department
solicitors opinion. He has appealed to the
Attorney General for a hearing on the
issues raised and this has been granted.
The District Commissioners, the Recreation
Board and the Board of Education should,
and undoubtedly will, support General
Grant. The Park Service itself, unless 1t
has been badgered beyond belief by the
Interior Department politicians, should
also support General Grant.
In brief, the Department of Interior law
yer argues that when the Recreation Board
was created in 1912, the law resclnded
previous statutes under which the Park
and Planning Commission assigned land
(purchased by it, to the District Commits
sioners for playground use. Therefore, the
control of such land lies with the Interior
Department, through its Park Service. And
its use hereafter as Fairgrounds, operated
by the Recreation Board would depend
upon whether the Recreation Board met
conditions laid down by the Park Service.
The manifest intent of the decision is to
eliminate the segregated or dual system of
Fairgrounds, which follows the pattern of
the dual school system in Washington. But
the reasoning behind the decision is some
thing else. 1t contradicts, in the first place,
a previous decision by former Interior
Department solicitor, who reached an
exactly opposite finding. 1t construes the
law to mean something it never said. It
strongly suggests a disingenuous attempt
to bolster preconceived conclusion, colored
by political considerations. -
General Grant points out that the play
grounds here have always been under the
control and jurisdiction of the Commis-
sioners. Until 1924 they bought the land
themselves. In 1924 the Park and Plan
ming Commission was charged with ac-
quiring park lands, but was given the
discretionary power to select, purchase and
assign to the Commissioners the land that
would be used as Fairgrounds. Land ac-
quired for parks, on the other hand, was
originally assigned Ito the chief of engi-
neers and his control later passed to the
National Park Service. There was never
any doubt that while the title to all this
land, bought by District taxpayers dollars,
rested with the United States, its control
was assigned by the Park and Planning
Commission either to the Commissioners
or the Park Service, depending on its use.
When the Recreation Board was estab-
lished, the Park and Planning Commission
played prominent part In writing the
law. The attempt here was to place all
recreational facilities-at that time run
by half dozen independent agencies
under the control of board, on which
are the representatives of the Park Service,
the Commissioners, the Park and Planning
Commission and the Board of Education.
Land and facilities assigned to the board
passed to its control, provided its use did
not conflict with other purposes for which
it was held by the agency possessing orig
inal Jurisdiction. Throughout its operation
the Recreation Board has been handi-
capped by the Interior Departments jeal-
GUS control of some of its own holdings In
Federal park lands. The Interior Depart
ment now wishes to extend its control to
all the property bought under the Capper-
Cramton Act and disputes the right of
the Park and Planning Commission to
assign District land to the Commissioners.
There is a lot more to this devious deci-
sion than meets the eye. The Secretary of
the Interior is to be commended for send
ing it to the Department of Justice for
review and thorough investigation before
attempting to give its absurdities any
effect.