Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1872-08-31

repeal the charter by the Congress Of the Uni.
! ted states.
The provIso to the hrst section Of the charter
| h rs follows; "That the use and maintenance OF
said ruad shall he subject 10 the municipal reVu.
! Iations Of the cities Of Washington and 0eOtge.
town, respectively, Within their several corpO.
| rate limits, and that whenever the Capitol
! grounds shall be enlarged then the said r0utes
| shall be made TO conform thereto 20
! The first section " the charter authorizes
. and II u contract, ~ commended, roquiTes-tho
I main track 10 DO tald from tho foot Of the Capt
| toll grounds; Thence around tho southern boun.
! Diary OF the Capitol grounds, and along their
| southern boundary oastetly to Pennsylvania
nyenuo.'
/ These provisions Of the charter coucluslyeIy
| show that when the Government made n contract
pressly or by implicatlon-wlth the control over
the land granted In trust Tor the public benefit
and to he subject TO the good or bad taste Of the
| legislative department
The company, In the management OF H. quai
OF real franchise was to be subject to the legls-
lative, municipal regulations ~ the corporate
authorities Of Washington and qeotEetoWn.
suppose, for argument, that the corporate
| poWefs-or the present substituted and enlarged
! power-had prohibited or were TO prohibit, by
municipal regulation, the running VI the cars
! from Saturday night at " o'clock until Sunday
night at IL o'clock, could tho company have
| found, or now find, authority to disregard tho
regulation IN section nine VI the charter which
provides THAT the said company shall place dTS'.
| class cars on said railways with all the modern
| Improvements, for the convenience and comfort
! Of passengers" and run every NEE mlautes, kc.2
! Or would the ordinances have been, or be, de.
olared void, A. intcrccptinK public convenience ?
The act OF the Congress N Tho United States,
approved July 5, 1870, providing for tho pave.
lnent Of Pennsylvania avenue" constituted 1.-THE
| Secretary or the Interior, General Michler, aud
| the Mayor Of Washington, RcOmmissiDn TO 20, ect
and determine the best kind Of paYRWoDt u ba
used 10 paving Psnnsylysnia avenue" from ths
One provision was that 'the sail railroad ootn.
pany Washington and uoorRpllwnl shall have
the right to select tho material with which tho
pavement between the rails and hetwoen the
tracks shall he made' PROVIDED, That the said
pavement on said tracks shall be made to the
satisfaction Of the commissioners"
This was the nrst ihtr ductlOn Of wooden pave .
ments into Washington city--and II was con-
fined 10 q distance Of near one mile-and then
began o system Of grading. THIS was under the
ment, and one local oAicet holding Tho g1mml5-
sion BY the election Of the people VI tho city Of
Washington.
The work vas confined and lImIe.I to that por
tlon Of the great Keys one avenue which would
lead from the Executive Mansion AMI thp Treas.
ury and Capitol buildings Of the Union.
The f1h paragraph OF the bill exhibited by
the railway company alcgcsth thoy alsO laid
their track and furnished their roads with
proper cars aud motive power ~.
the ninth section Of the act Ut Incorporation
pTDyidus "that tho said company shall place
hrst olass 0Arr on said railways, with ali the
modern improvements for The convenience and
Comforts OF nuAaenNefr, 40.
This allegation Is to be tnkon as ttu0 because
not cOntrOyetted by the answer
Whether the company consider tho cars on the
Philadelphia streets as the most improved or
not does not appear In that place the passen.
yer Il generally furnished with neat com.
Portable seat; whether no Ia or not On these roads
In question 10 not controversial.
And whether that tact u 81 Or not u lmewhat
lmmaterial In this case, fnt the IIulu Issue IL,
whether the company shall run In the middle OF
the Avenue, and be permitted 10 pave with cob
blestOne or be required 10 pave With wood The
third section OF tho charter provides THAT tho
said railway shall be laid IN the o0ntrU Of the
avenues and streets, as near ~ may be- without
interfering with or passing over the water or
gas pipes, 10 the mos approved manner adopted
Tor street railways, with rails oT1he most APP
proved patterns, to be determined by the Secre.
tAry OF the Interior" sc,
one question between the parties Il whore tbs
track shall be lAldf
The company contends that II has the tIght-
notwithstanding the alteration Of gridrs-tO lay
Its track In the centre Of the Avenue " ~ near
as II may DO.
l have come to the conclusion that this Isa
right which the company has, II II can be eXer-
clsed without Interfering as prohibited.
Tho company has the real estate In the centre
Of the Avenue, takes II with LIS burthens, Is
bound TO keep II up, aud as the hOiri would nut
be authorized u force an Individual IN change
sides Of street, neither can II take away the
property Of the company without cundemulng It
Tor public use and compromising therefor.
We cannot say what motive induces the &C.
lion OF the company. Sufficient Is Il that they
have a right TO tho csntto, unless power has
been given to the constituted authJfltles vi tho
District TO change their locality.
This Is tho only very grave puo5IiO n In the
A. this point Twin refer to and use the opinion
IN the case Of Richardson vs.. The board ui Pub
lie Works far as Il relates TO tie powers VI the
board, which case decided during this term.
In that case the Injunction was rriusci, but
the powers OF tho board were discussed
"OOmplainauts contend that defendant IA
posing beyond the limit uf power IN entering
upon the grounds In quesllvp
" Defendant answers that, by sec I'm 81 o. act
Of Congress Of February y, 1874, 10 Statutes at
Large, I25,l IL Is authorized to Improve III,
streets roads and avenues u the District Que
plOylsiun Oi the section referred to is' The
Board VI Flhliq Works shall have entire con
trul Of and make ali regulations which they
shall deem necessary for Keeping Ia repair tho
streets, avenues, alleys And sewers Ut the city,
and all other works Which may 10 entrusted TO
their charge by the Legislative Assembly or
Congress. Here Il very general grant u
powers over specified objects, The objects 10 no
enlarged by action Ot grant BY the Legislative
Assembly
" Has tho Assembly or Congress authorized
the burrl To ~ beyond the limits Of tho cities
The powers granted to the Legislative Assembly
may be viewed as general power Of attorney
by Congress, which itself may bs limited In its
exclusive legislative powers" ty the genius Of
our Cons iIutlun, which Is watched by Tho woen.
Ing aprrehensiOns Oi critical people, with
powers q Substitution Of grants TO the Board Of
Public works.
" But when this SUBSTITUTION Is complotsd by
tho Assembly, the substituted agent must look
TO It that tho principal agent mas not trans
canlel the PoWefs originally granted by tho
principal.
"T6e warming IL that hgUeyor general the
grant Of power as to plrycular, specified oh.
iccts, you must not hleTtaks Ia stop beyond
the objects aud spirit oI the original grant.
The Legislative Assembly passed tue act
desgntted the improvement Iun bil,' ap.
proved uly TO- 1871; and II Is claimed by the de.
isndant that this act Of suostitu'iun IA withln
the range Of the powers Vt tho agent, aul lItt
It coniers upon 1t the plwer u extend It's lehs
VI improvements beyond the limits VI the cities
and throughout the District.
"fhis act Of the ASsemb y was approved by
Congress at It's recent session.
but this act Of CungrObs merely approves the
act Of Assembly, and does not eulATge the
powers originally given, or place any legislative
construction thereon thereby rauiying or con.
lrming any act which tue Assembly was not
already empowered 70 perform. Tho gTqdlnB
Of streets, alleys, &C, may DO very necessary TO
Instance where tho evidence shows that .
contemplated work would result IN any
inlury which would be lrrVp ,rahlo to tho
public or ~ indlYiduals, and which damages at
law would not compensate tho lndlVidu Il, tho
cOuIts will enloln the proceeding.
THE powers conferred On the board or dele.
gated To the Assembly, with power Of substitu-
ton, by act Of UUngTCss, are different when ap-
piled to town and country. For no power VIII
be implied which would be llcOnsisten with the
objects or subjects Of the grant. The board
sllAll nave bulIt So 50 lhf US hlftelrt
alleys and sewers are Involved In the towns but
even this power Is 10 be- construed with refer
0nc8 10 known aud established modes or princl.
pies Of works rs nppllo able 10 the subject mat
Ter Of the grant.
Towns and cities are differently worked
upon laid OF, interseotet, blsectoi, raised, lev
eled, illed up and built upon to tho grounds
10 the country.
THE road, pass-way, avenue or opening In
controversy, although u public highway, Ia IN
the country, outside the ITpOTate limits Of the
city Of Washington, and under any grant thus
far made cannot be repaired 10 any other way
than road or highway In the country. Side
walks on such highways cannot be arbitrarily
made, and such improvements mugl he LETT To
tho taste OF the pFUprletOra.
ut Is thought by defendant that the provision |
Of the improvement loan blll' enlaTyss and eK.
tends the powers OF the boards, In the words AS
fully Nc may DO practicable aud consistent With |
the public ihteFFHL'
"Thls Is assuming TOO much The work must |
stlll 20 on under tho powers granted for paTtio-
ular, specified classes Of ObiSUis aud subieols.
The board II n trustee, aud Its dlscTe ion |
must DO construed as limited by tho terms Of |
II cannot go beyond the specified |
Objects It's discretion, or the exercise Of Il, may
he tho very question submitted to court, and II |
a clear case Of iTreparable damnge-boyUnd the |
reach Of compensation At laws shown, q court l
Of equity will lnterpOse; for the citizen must be /
N hia inNiufdual FiuhIu