DEAR COLONEL WHITE:

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-01370R000500050103-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 24, 2000
• Sequence Number: 103
• Publication Date: July 15, 1955
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For F ase 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP80-0137OF%W500050103-8
riet ar~at XATIOWT- CAPITAL PARK AND FUUMM 8SION
ttevisw of tbla doaamat by >i bas
detarwieed that
o 014 has fly a6jectteti ieetisS MWONSTITUTED AS
p It centelso i *metlen of Ilk
interest that most ree$Js NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANUM C001ISSION
ciassiiied at n $ e ~.~ 1952
Aathortlya If* IN JULY
o it contains nothing of CtA intefed
Oita Revieww
(11,01onel L. B. White
Central Intelligence Agency WASHINGW1I, D. C.
2430 E Street, N.W.
Washington 25 , D. C. July 15, 1955
.
You have asked me, as General counsel of the rational Capita].
Planning Commission, for my opinion as to this Commission's statutory
authority pertaining to certain phases of the George Washington Memorial
Parkway an the Virginia side of the Potomac and, particularly, as to
contentions node to the Senate Appropriations coeamittee today by Mr.
Floger D. Fisher about the Itission.'s authority.
The Act of May 29, 1930, 46 Stat. 482, as amended, authorized the
a + ,uisition of land for the George Washington Memorial Parkway and author-
ized appropriations for the land and for the development of the Parkway
with a highway as a part thereof on the Virginia side of the Potomac from
Mt. Vernon to Great Falls, exclusive of Alexandria, and on the Maryland
aide from fort Washington to G mat Falls, exclusive of the District.
?.saat Act vested in the Planning Commission certain authority and duties
pertaining to the Parkway.
Section i(a) of the Act incorporated the Mt. Vernon Memorial Nigh-
way, authorized by the Act of My 23, 1928, as a part of the George Waash-
i.ngton Memorial Parkway. That Highway, constructed with Federal funds,
connected Mt. Vernon with the Arlington Memorial Bridge. Section 1(a)
authorized the construction with Federal funds of a higbwtt y on the Virginia
aide to complete the Parkway to Great Falls, but prohibited the use of
Federal finds, except as a part of the Federal-aid highway program, for
the highway from Fort Washington to the Great Falls on the Maryland side.
A connecting free bridge was authorized across the Potomac at or near
Great Falls .
From the meaning of the word "parkway," with which Section 1(a)
deals macs' exclusively, it is clear that Congress intended to authorize
the construction of a scenic highway. The 1914 edition of Webster's
International Dictionary was the first edition of that dictionary which
t9tained the word "parkway." The 19114 definition was only "A broad
ha ar?e beautified with trees and turf." Each new edition of
Webster's International published since 192E contained the sane definition
without more. The Act of 1930 was enacted fifteen years after the word
appeared for the first time in Webster's. It is a cardinal rule of law
that when Congress uses a word without defining it, the word is intended
to have the ordinary or usual dictionary meaning. In view of the fact
that it has only one such meaninngg I cannot a~~e can
Approved For Release 2002/04/b1 : CIA-RDPoo-0 0 03u i-o
 Approved For Rse 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP80-01370R00050103-8
- 2 -
successfully be maintained that the George Washington Memorial Parkway or
any pert of it must be merely a large park.
Further, the legislative history of the Act of August 8, 1946,
60 Stat. 960, amending the original Act, clearly proves that Congress,
in passing the original Act, intended to authorise a highway upstream
on the Virginia side.
Speaking of the highway provided between Fort Washington and
Great Falls on the Maryland side, the third proviso of Section 1(a) of
the original Act rods as follows:
"Provided further, That no money shall be expended by the
united States for the construction of said highway on the
Maryland side of the Potomac, except as part of the Federal-
~
aid highway program: sa."
Te foregoing quoted language prohibited the expenditure of
Federal funds for a highway on the Maryland side, except as a part of
the Federal-aid highway program, but did not prohibit the expenditure
of Federal funds for such a purpose on the Virginia side.
The fourth proviso of Section 1(a) of the original Act permitted.
the Federal Government to advance, on a reimbursable basis, funds for
the Maryland or Virginia shares of the acquisition costs of the "ends
"and the construction of said roads in such unit referred to in this"
section. "Werscoring supplied.) this language included the Virginia
side, and the Mt. Vernon Memorial Highway already extended downstream
from the Memorial fridge to Mt. Vernon, it could only refer to the
Virginia side of the Parkway from the Memorial Bridge upstream to Great
Falls.
The 1946 amending Act struck out all of the third proviso of
Section 1(a) of the original Act and struck out the words "and the
construction of said roads" in the fourth proviso of that section.
Language appearing in the Senate Committee report (S. Kept. No. 1766,
79th conB?, accompanying S. 2286) explains the third reason for striking
out the third proviso and the six words from the fourth proviso of the
original Act. The explanation reads as follows:
"Sections 1 and 2 of the bill, as reported by the comeittee,
would amend sections 1(a) and 1 (b) of the George Washington
Memorial Parkway Act of May 29, 1930 06 Stat. 4ft) to eliminate
from those sections so much of the language thereof as prohibits
expenditure by the united States of any money for the ccnstraction
of the George Washington Memorial Parkway on the Maryland side of
the Potomac, except as part of the Federal-aid highway program.
These prohibitions contained in existing law are applicable only
to the construction of that part of the parkway on the Maryland
side of the Potomac River and do not apply to that portion of the
parkway on the Virginia side of the Potomac River. There appears
to be no good reason for the ttdiscrimination. The committee is,
Approved F 'r Release Zv TOT Al 3 F M'?'03-8
 Approved For IWase 2002/04/01 CIA-RDP80-01370F%0500050103-8
_3 -
Prom the language of the report quoted above, it is obvious that
Congress intended that the upper Virginia portion of the Parkway should
have a road or highway because Congress had given permissive authority
to spend Federal funds specifically for such a highway. Attached hereto
and made a part hereof are photostatic copies of excerpts of the Con-
gressional Record of July 29, 1946 and August 1, 1946, setting forth,
respectively, the entire debate in the Senate and Souse which occurred
an the bill. These make it doubly clear that Congress originally intended
(and reaffirmed that intention in 1946) to provide for the construction
of highways on the upstream portion of the Virginia side of the George
Washington Memorial Parkway.
Mr. Fisher is mistaken in saying that the Act of 1930 "authorized
the National Capital Planning Co?ission to take over all or most of the
proposed site at Langley for park purposes." The only provision of that
Act to which he could have referred roads as follows :
"The Sational Capital Park and Planning Cc ission is
authorized to eoaci y such lands belonging to the United
States as may be necessar for the deve' eat and
t oonn of said p army ..." (Underscoring supplied. )
The above quoted language does not refer in any way to the "site
at Langley" nor does it permit the Commission "to take over" land aloft
the Potomac entitled in the United States merely for park purposes. On
the contrary, land so located and belonging to the United States, but
under the control and Jurisdiction of other Federal agencies, may be
occupied by the Comission only when such land is "necessary for the
developmnt and protection of said parkway." The Camission has de-
termined that a portion of the land involved is necessary for the
authorized purpose. Of course, had the Cau^dssion determined that all
of the land was necessary, the Commission would have acted properly and
within its statutory authority in making such a determination. But the
Comission's determination was not so inclusive and the statutory
language certainly does not make it mandatory for the Coemission to
occupy all of any such tract of land.
If I may be of further service to you or your Agency, please call
Sincerely yours,
/a/ William S. Cheatham
Willias S. Cbeatbas
General Counsel
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500050103-8