Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1888-05-03

THE INTELLIGENCER,
~ Lancaster, Pa
arTeiephone Connection
The Eject Of the Decision.
Tho remarkable decision of the Penn.
sylvanls supreme court, which refuses to
the mandate of the onstitution-requir-
ing damages to be paid for the injury to
private property In the construction Of
railroads--such meaning as will require
the damage to be paid that results from
the operation of railroads, has had its
natural consequence in melting the Read.
ing railroad company to bring its road
way to Market street, upon an elevated
railroad, through many miles Of the
built.up portion Of Philadelphia. That
great injury will be done to private
property, adjacent to the proposed line,
Il not denied but the company declines
TO agree TO pay any such damage, though
It's solicitor thought 1t might agree to pay
actual damage IL any definite mode OF
ascertaining it could be fixed. 1t was
the difficulty OF deciding upon the line
where damage could be clearly de-
termined that decided the supreme court
70 construe the law SO as TO limit COM
pensation to injury done in the construc-
ton Of the works, and to refuse damages
for the loss of value to property on
Filbert street in front of which the
Pennsylvania elevated railroad runs,
though it was undisputed that great
damage was suffered.
The language Of the constitution
seems very clearly to include all damage
done that can be ascertained, and the
tribunal set down by the laws for the
entertainment Of damages is a jury.
There does not seem to be any good
reason why jury verdict should not as
definitely fix the damage done TO prop
erty by structure In front of 1t as on
top Of it. Evidently the supreme court
was not willing to trust such determina-
tion to a jury and allow it discretion to
decide that damage was caused by an
elevated railroad fifty feet away from
residence, lest jury might go mile
away to find damage and just as
clearly the Reading railroad com.
pany is not willing to take such
jury risks. This is natural in the rail-
road company, but unnatural In the
supreme court. 1t may be bad public
policy to give loose rein to jury to fix
damages for public improvements but
that Is question for the constitutional
convention and the legislature, and not
for the judges, who construe the law and
do not make fit; which they too often
seem to think to be their duty.
In truth the people find it very difficult
TO enforce their judgment against cor
porations and the state Of Pennsylvania
y having particularly trying time just
now. After the law makers have beer
persuaded to execute the will of theii
constituents, the courts come in to up
ret 1t by constitutional construction
that happens with remarkable regularity
to work against the people and for the
corporations. The Dauphin court has
lately been very freely knocking out the
corporation taxes assessed by the state
In obedience, the judges say, to the latest
instructions of the United States
supreme court as to interstate traffic
though it would seem to have been
better IL our judges had taken the
risk Of deciding in favor Of Pennsylvania
law, leaving the corporations to defeat 1t
with the federal bludgeon If they could
WELD it on appeal.
The supreme courts decision as to rail.
road damages leaves the people of Phil.
adeIphia without redress for such dam
age. II they permit the railroads to be
bailt; and even the legislature cannot
give it to them. 1t is not certain that
the contract could be maintained be-
tween the city and the railroad company, if
the latter should dagree to pay the damages.
Under these circumstances the city can.
not prudently allow the construction of
railroads that promise great damage to
private property and SO the very argu.
ment upon which the supreme court
based Its decision, namely, the need of
promoting public improvement, should
reverse that decision. Public improve
ments cannot be permitted which do
not compensate injury done to private
property. This is old law and old sense !;
and new railroad projects must remain
In abeyance until it is Ie-establshed as the
law in Pennsylvania. Justice Sterrett
was the only supreme court Judge that
kept a level head in considering the
question. He dissented from his associ-
ates, holding that wherever there is a
substantial injury the constitution was in
tended to provide a remedy, whether a
part OF the property was taken or not, and
this remedy was intended to include in one
action all injuries, whether from the con-
slruction or operation of public works"
Which is curious illustration how ore
may be clearly right and six as clearly
wrong, though they be all judges learned
IN the law, and the issue very simple
one.