Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-04-18

The District Commissioners have s'nt 10 Mt.
Auldrow, chairman OF the subcommittee on Ju-
dietary OF the House District committee. a letter
giving their views. requested. on House I'LL M.
2sl, ITO give the Court Of Claims jurisdiction 10
audit and settle claims FOR damages 10 real estate
caused by public improvements sc. Thu, letter
says: ..The commissioners had occasion to consider
this subject before Congress assembled. Several
attorneys and claim agents appeared before them.
claiming that lot owners whose property was lrft
above or below grade on streets newly opened were
damaged thereby and should be enumerated there
Tor. They also claimed thst such demands would
amount 10 total Of several million dollars. and
asked the Commissioners II recommend 10 Cen
gress 10 authorize payment OF the sane That
ciaSs or Claims was urged strongly upOn The theory
that the Inability In sue for and collect such dam
ages was owing TO the exceptional character OF the
law In this District.
The Commissioners found this theory 10 h. erro-
neous-that by TIE common law or England and NJ
!ne nlttd States every municipality has the rcht
10 open new StTeets-tO cut through hills M hal-
lows and improve the grades and that II such work
be carefully done no liability is incurred thereby 10
the adjacent property owners That every owner
purchases and holds his lot subject 10 that right
the same as he holds IL subject the right OF taxa
ton This has been discussed ana decided in nearly
every state, but the cases have been summed up.
and the law decided by the supreme Court OF tile
United States, We need not look further.
In the case or Goszler VS. Georgetown. reported
In heat, 5e3, II appears that the first grade
established In 1892 and was 81 changed in 1910 as 10
leave the platinum house perched above the street.
yet the court decided that he Was entitled TO no
relief.
In the case OF Smith VS.. Washington CITY. re-
ported In % How, l35, the grade on Is street had
been established ia 1891 and several wears later the
street was lowered, trees, sidewalk and wall r.
moved, and ingreSS and egreSs to plaintiffs lot otN
structed. The court held that II was the duty or
the city 10 have the streets properly graded: that
II Is case where private interest must Weld 10
public accommodation, and that one cannot build
his house on the top OF Hill In The midst Ot city
and require the grade TO conform To his COVE
nience and that the law on this sIblect H. well
tied. both In England and this country, ana the
cases are too numerous for quotation.
In the case or Transportation Co vs. Chicago. 2
oeto 635, this doctrine II further e!ucldated the
court observing that this doctrine, however IL
may at times appear az variance with natural Jus
tice, rests upon the sOundest legal reason TArS.
claims. therefore, begin upon a wrong theory uI the
law, for nothing can De better proven than The
proposition that street Improvements have pro-
crossed AT the national capital. well In OF her
cities OF the country, upon the well understood Law
that no obligation TO adjacent property owners Is
Incurred thereby
II might be impossible TO prove that any particu-
lar lot owner asked that hes, nr0yerl,rts ~hod
De- made but II l. We'll known MAT there was. and
stu is, general demand that such improvements,
be made, and that they have promoted the growth
OF the city, and generally enhanced thr value II
properly, and, II the legislation now proposed had
been anticipated, doubtless Tull release Tor dam
ages would have been asked Tor and obtained or
the Improvement la many cases would not have
been made. To 60 back now, and by retroactive
legislation make Illegal what was lawful when
done, and compel city 10 pay damages for what
1t did upon the condition that no damages we're 30
be paid, Il unusual Ia state legislation, and UI-
known hey ond this District
III the rule now and heretofore existing IS not the
correct one statute changngit should be prospe,-
tive only. so that IMPROVEMENTS may DE mad. or
omitted with reference 10 a known law. III the
statute IL 10 be retrospective II CrtainlT ought EOt
TO Include claims having origin prior 1896 tor
the excuse Tor the blu recited ia III" preamble IL
that the board OF audit abolished IL that wear
and that improvements OF streets have continued.
That board uf audit under the original aud con-
tinuing acts assumed 10 hear and decide all claims
FOR dan
improvements IL Is open 10 question II Congress
intended TO confer that power, but IL doubted
that the board exercised IL In good faith and paid
every claim they found To De neritor1oyS and re-
jected the others When Congress realized what
was being done, that board WAS abolished. Yet tE.s
bill proposes In substance To have All these cases r-
tried by another tribunal These claim agents are
boldly attempting the miraculous, and seek 10
make each claim, Ike the widows cruise or oil, an
unfalllng source OF prolt
IL the district is 10 be involved In thousands "
law SUITS and must prepare 10 meet the combined
force OF ali the claim agents ami their interested
witnesses concerning matters lar in the past,
there certainly should be ample provision made for
the Increased expense, as We'll as TO pay the judy
ments, for the observation OF the commissioners Is
that such Claims swell enormously with years, and
that the claimants are the principal witnesses
While there are. doubtless, Individual cases OF
hardship appealing 10 the sympathy OF Congress
and the Commissi Jners, yet II the ffDodgates are
opened and all claimants are TO rush in, much
greater injustice Will be inflicted upon the tax
payers OF to-day than that which the bill proposes
TO remedy. The Commissioners therefore protest
that such new and unusual obligations should not
be imposed in any case The Constitution wisely
prohibits the impairment OF al obligation. II II
does not prohibit the creation of obligation
or lawful acts In the past IL Is because before It's
adoption no such attempt had ever been made.
Ii is an Invention of the modern claim agent. The
Commissioners trust that Congress viii not ap-
prove the principle, nor allow claims 10y rrtrnac-
tive legislation. IT, however. the committee decide
otherwise tien the hill should Ice so amended Ia
allow no claim which the board 81 audit did or
might cOnsd'r during It's existence. and an offset
lts Ter a
detail should also be modified: but the
wholly rejecting this bill wci-htF The Com
mSsoners trust that further consideration Will
be necessary"