Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-01-09
loop, the only place where bother could be ex
pected is nearly finished.
BEGINNING AT THE BASE.

NJ. A. Woodward Tells How a Perfect Street
Law Could Be Formulated-Must Give
Directors an Easy and Cheap Method OF
Appeal-CoIIe citing Assessments.
Fears being expressed that the city was in
p muddle from which it would be difficult to
extricate itself, there being no longer view
ers to view way out, NJ. A. Woodward,
one of the counsel in the Boggs avenue case,
was asked what he thought of the situation.
Woodward refused to talk as lawyer, that
is to 90 into DETAIL Tor he said he had not time,
but he talked generally nevertheless and the
substance thereof was that it is a simple matter
to frame a street improvement law that even
the Supreme Court cannot disturb; but MI.
Woodward observed that the builders must pc
gin at the base and not at the top; people IN
terested must have ample chance to be heard
and protected and the viewers should not De
merely city and permanent body. he tnougnt
there was no danger of the city being reie-
gated to the condition of country village by
the decision, as there was no difficulty in fram-
ing an equitable law that would accomplish
the purpose.
Mr. Woodward does not anticipate that any
street business transacted prior to 1881 VIII De
disturbed, everything settled being allowed 10
stand, but as in the case OF the rem aVenue 70
act there might be a question OF estoppel 10 De
settled IN the cases of people who mad Pc
tltioned for improvements.
The Petitioners Had to Pay.
Mr.. Woodward did not refer to if, but most
people interested will reoollect that people who
petitioned for improvements under the Penn
avenue act find trouble in getting the resulting
liens removed from the record, even though
they cannot be made pay them.
{. A. O'Brlen, the other counsel in the boGss
avenue case. said the main question decided IN
1t was raised hy him and Mr.. Woodward before
the Board of Viewers when the assessment was
being made in September, 1889. and the op-
hpO M renewed
the principal one being the unconstitutionallty
of the act of 1857 being special legislation.
They contended tnat the question was origin
ally and properly raised. Judge stowe dls-
missed the appeal, not so much from the con-
vicJion that the appellants ground was not
well taken as from a belief that the question
should be passed upon by the supreme Court,
and he therefore allowed the city the benefit of
the doubt. The Shiloh street case, represented
by Mr. Fetterman, had not ripenec when the
Boggs avenue case was made up. and when the
former was taken up the line Of argument IN
the Boggs avenue case was followed and the
paper book merely submitted, being copy OF
that in the BoSgs avenue case.
As to the effect, Mr. U br1en agreed with MT.
Woodward, that parties having paid under
either acts, 1857 and 1889, could not recover
from the city.
Blamed on the Board of Viewers.
He said it was mooted question among
lawyers whether or not the city can procure
remedial or curative legislation to collect from
property holders for Improvements made under
these acts. and practically all the trouble comes
first and last through the action of the Board
of Viewers so severely handled by the Supreme
Court. but Mr. o Brien said he was inclined to
believe that such legislation would be difficult
10 procure and Of doubtful efficacy If gotten.
He said further that there is no question that
the act 1883 shows the fate of that of 1887, but
he thought improvements begun will be finished.
Mr. O'Brien says there will be no trouble to
frame a law that will hold water. as the Su-
preme Court has pointed out the defects of that
OF 1887 SO as to outline the merits of one that
would pass inspection. The main point in a la
would be to preserve the right OF the citizen to
have a fair hearing. 1t is not question OF
benefits and damages but that they shall be as
easily and cheaply obtainable as in ordinary
cases at law. The main objection to the Board
of Viewers rests in the fact that being the ap-
pointees of the city they cannot be trusted to
be impartial in all cases. There should be three
disntereSted persons chosen as viewers for
each improvement made from time to time, and
methods of appeal from their action TO Court
or jury should be as sure and equally as easy as
in other proceedings.