Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-10-04

Yesterday afternoon the application Of
the Howard heirs, Sallers & Co. and other
Diamond street property owners for an in
Junction restraining the city from making
the proposed widening of that street, was
heard before Judge Ewing.
The plaintiffs were represented by Hon. John
Dalzell and John H. Hampton, and the city by
H. I. Watson, Major Moreand andJ. NJ Cook.
The court room was quite crowded with people,
showing that the proceedings had awakened
considerable interest.
Mr.. Dalzel opened the argument for the
petitioners. He reviewed eXhaustively the
legislation authorizing the taking of property
and the assessment of damages and benefits
showing that In the present case two separate
and distinct sovereign powers of the State are
called in to exercise the eminent domain and
tax power. By the exercise of one the citizens
property is taken by the other; an attempt is
made to compensate the losers. Neither can
be exercised except in conformity to constitu-
tional provisions. The eminent domain can be
exercised only by corporations clothed with the
power. A grant of eminent domain to widen
street cannot be given otherwise than by a
clear express grant, and only on condition of
just compensation by the party taking the
property. Just compensation involves an ade-
quaue remedy by which property owners can
obtain recompense without delay.
widening Of the street. Mr.. DalZell said: This
act violates the Constitution even as it existed
prior TO 1874, in seeking to impose special and
local taxes for general public advantages The
cases of Hammett VS. Philadelphia, Washing
ton avenue, SaWmlll run bridge and Seely VS.
the city of Pittsburg, treat of improvements
which do not involve the taking private
property. These cases decide that local taxa
uon for general public use is unconstitutional,
and that street or highway having been once
uhSpOnpnf IS
Sc public and not a private benefit, and is to
be paid for by general and not local taxation.
The plaintiffs property cannot be taken except
for public use.
is left to their arbitrary discretion. The Con-
stltution calls for a limited and uniform power
Of taxation with the authoritg of levying the
tax. There is no rule as to uniformity and
there cannot be equality without rule of
measurement. and the only rule suggested here
is again left to possible arbitrary discretion
Of the viewers This act infringes section of
article III of the Constitution which says: No
bills except general appropriation bills shall be
passed containing more than one subject which
shall be expressed in its title" This act con-
talns more than than one subject 1t pro-
vides for the improvement of streets.
lanes, alleys, sewers, walks, etc 1t
regulates practice of courts in reference to
appeals, provides for a system of liens and
makes provision for compulsory sales Only
one of the subjects is expressed in the title of
the act Classification only is permissible,
when founded on necessity, and that IN the
present case, classifying rights of persons and
property, is not permissible.
Mr.. Dalzell cited numerous cases in support
of his argument, and closed by stating that if
the position he had taken were right the
plaintiffs property could not be taken.
Mr.. Watson opened his address, but had
only made a few remarks when Judge Ewing
adjourned court until this morning In the
short time allowed him Nj. Watson reviewed
the section of the Constitution of 1874, which
had been referred to. and stated that several
changes had been made. He admitted that the
property could not be taken from the plaintiffs
without compensation. The city must collect
money for damages in some way whether it be by
general or local taxation, and that in the WIDEN
ing of street the only proposition to be con-
sidered is whether it is local or general i'm
proVement