Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1879-05-23

| N kiG6 C1DpeOSGt0G LCsIStJT. SGl |! ua9 W
sen E. to d. So l. has r;s:r c ed TIA po8e
Of ils gsco., TIE Z u,'S Court, IN this rcspcc'
and sh I'd ;Ec Crtia ) &; utt, disretarciag tbi
resriciiln upon ita power ct conGeE naIcp
su.horz,s u railroad TO tc constituted !hrcu
a dwelling house or W!thin 60 feet .bereof with
GU. tho censen. of the oRDcr th,r.of. suct
judgment OF condemnation wouli clearly be In
operative 10 cnufer au2 ii hit upon the CIR. ora
ton, aDd ineff:c!ual 10 protect any agent o
such corporation from the constquenoes OF hi
stric.ion upop the powers Of CGua'y Gauss
but it is TO be observed that the ilE;s liu'iot
nav BE- charged by the consent Ct tie oTrer .
the dwelling house. Ia Sc II G
the fano chapter aaothcr restriction /
imposed. NJ company shall occupy witt
lis works tho street Of any town uoll tht
corporate authorities Of the town shall have
sssented to suoh occupation unless su,h ts:en
be dispensed with by special provision OF In.
Here again is Limitation or restriction m-
posed upon tho courts which may DO obVated
by the consent OF the corporate authorities CT
the town or BY the Legislature iisaIf Bntsrp
Dose the law had said: mo company shall
occupy with it's works the streets OF toWD,
then it is clear that authority 10 do so could
only have been acquired by express Legislative
provision while tho difference would have bet Q
that the restriction imposed was not for the
benefit CT the town a5 c5rportloo tut from
motives OF policy aud for the btni; Of .ha
public. Its indeed too obvious for Argument.
lst. That the right Of eminent domain re-
sides 10 The State.
Pad. That tho State may delegate aud has
delegated the exercise OF That right 10 c.rta'n
cf her courts.
3rd. That 10 thu, delega'iag tbs power, re-
strie:ioas and Limitations hsva been imposed
upon said courts.
Ain. That dgmeut Ct said courts disregard
Ing the limitations aud restrictions imp:s,d
would te 10 excess Of lha Jurisdiction OF ito
court and 10 that cX;cnt null aud Vli3
9Th. That ttij defect or i1G'mtr 10 The
jutgmnen1 splinei6g from tho waut Ct ild5dlo'
lion 10 he urt to pronounce such judgment
can always be shown by those whose ioterest it
may be 10 attack such judgncn! d!rtc.ly or
coilatcraly.
1t only remAics then TO irqlife whether the
prcviso in the charter ersDled The petitioner. Is
Within the cpsra,i N OF these p!ioaiples. The
Legislature declares ty thas provlso that The
Alex. g. Fredericksburg Railway sballlu no. way
interfere With The chartered rights or franchise
OF auv railroad ,X.cndiug between Alexandra
and Washington. This language Is 30 broad
and clear lhst shall not undertake to mako it
more plain. twill scarcely b, seriously con-
tended that entering upon end taklog to lts
OVID use eight acres oil the a0d belonging to the
A. & W. r. K. i5 not 90 Interference with Its
chartered rights If il is not an Interference
on the pert Of The AI,yandli, l. Fredericksburg
Railway TO cntcr uuon the aods OF the A. & w.
K. r. neither would it be al Interference or
leespas, b, any other parsou natural or artificial
But the Legislature hss placed its meaniog
beyond all doubt or question By deolarng
tbst this power shall not BIO construed as pre-.
venting saii Alexandria and Fredericksburg
Railway from crossing any such railroad That
is TO say. in tho opinion Of tho Legislature, so
stringent was the operation Of the proviso that,
standing alone the A. s, F. L. W. could not
have acquired the powe: through the courts 10
50 much as cross tho track OF the A. u w. Il. K.
To say thst the County Court could condemn
acres and % perches OF the A. & w. x. K. rum
ming tie entire length Of ibis road ard vest it in
fea simple in the a. e +. Il. W. in tho face Of
this proviao, but that tho a. i +. T. w. could
cross the A. !, w. Il. K only by virLue of
legislative exception u tho proViso would %
strange construction 1t sali'f 3 ms ut least II. st
i: wss not intended that the petitioner shoa!d
have power TO acquire or that the coarts should
nave power to condemn for its use the chartered
rights and franchises Of the A. s. w. Il. K 1t
is to be observed also that there is no provision
mado here for the acquisition OF tho right by
consent Of tho a. g. W. K. 4. The owner OF Il
dwelling. Wa hsvo seer, i. protected against pro-
ceedings and judgment Of condemnation upon
him in nvi.um, and 81 also are thu strsets OF
q town; but the corporate authorities Of tho town
aud tho owner OF tina dwelling house may by
their consent permit the condemnation OF thtlr
property for tho uso OF s railroad corporaiioai
bit in The rroyiso under confederation there IL
40 provision made for abrng ,.ing the restriction
upon The A. 4 F. K w. by tho cobsent of the
A. & w. 4: 4. The presum ptioa is. that in the
cs.e Of tho owner OF the dwelling and tho au
thorities Of the town tho restriction wss !mpo:et
for their protection aad benefit. anil in tho csse
under consideration i. WAS inpoacd for reasons
of putlc policy. However lhs. may b., an
OF opinion ,hs. tho judgment Of the county
Coul. of Alexandra county which was afh tmed
on appel 10 tho Circuit Cuur: OF Alexandria
county, whereby said court undertook 10 Coz
denim = acres aad - perchca of tho land OF the
Alexandria snd Washington f. K. Co. and 10
vest tho enno in fec in the petitioner, Tho Alex.
aldrs and fredericksburg Railway Co il, for
the foregoing rcsSoas. null and void.