Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-01-08

InlS test to the act of une IA 1885, W be
improvement of streets of cities of the second
class. Some of its provisions are both new and
startling The act provides that the City Coun-
ellis may direct the opening. grading. widening
or other improvements of any street. lane or
alley on the petition of one-third in interest OF
the owners of property on such streets, lanes OF
alleys, and after Councils shall have gwen the
order for such opening grading, ETC., the fact
that the petition was signed, as it purported 70
be- by one-third of the property owners shall
not be questioned in any proceeding had In ae-
corGance Herewith" No matter how grossly
Councils may have been imposed upon, or how
decided may be the hostility of three-fourthsior
1ouT-ffths of the owners of property TO pc
affected by the proposed improvement, the
mouths of the great majority are closed; the
right of petition is denied them. The rlght 10
expose the fraud from which they must suffer
unless their complaint is heard is taken away
and they are delivered, bound hand and loot,
to the tender mercy of the city's contractor.
But the fourth section introduces another
novelty. 1t provides for the appointment OF
Board of Viewers by the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny county. to which all claims
for damages from the exercise of the right OF
eminent domain by the city in opening, grad,
ing or widening Streets lanes aud alleys and
from changes of grade or other Improvement
therein must be re ferred.
The members of this board hold office for
three years, and are appointed not at the in
stance of the party injured or on the knowl-
edge OF the Court, but solely on the mention OF
the City Attorney, and when ne chooses to ask
1t. They may be removed, but not at the in-
stance OF the property owners 1hls must oe
done on the address of the City Councils Their
compensation is fixed by the City Councils.
Taking Care of the Contractor.
All claims for damages growing out of the
opening. grading and widening of streets. ETC.,
must go to and be decided by this board. From
their decision an appeal lies 10 the City Coun-
cils, whose decision is final and conclusive,
unless appealed from within ten days II an
appeal is taken the City Attorney must be
notified and furnished with a copy Of all the
objections and reasons on account of which the
appeal is taken. Pending the appeal, If the
party complaining Is fortunate enough to secure
one, the contractor is carefully provided Tor, as
the act expressly provides that his work shan
go on except on the premises of the appellant.
No matter what question may be raised.
neither the work nor the collection of assess
ments can be suspended, except as to the par
tlcular appellant.
1t is easy to see what the practical operation
of the machinery thus provided might be. A
contractor or any interested parry might secure
name or names to petition tor the improve
ment of a street, lane or alley setting forth
that the slgners are one-third in interest of the
owners of property on such street, lane or alley,
and that the city in which such street is located
is in a city of the second class Upon this petI-
tion the City Councils may direct the opening.
widening or other improvement asked for. The
great majority of property owners may know
nothing about IL till the improvement is di-
rected and then because il is directed they can
not be heard to object. Judgment is entered
against them without notice and because it is
entered they cannot show that it is wrong, that
the city has been imposed upon and that the
improvement is not wanted by one-third or one
quarter of the owners. The city enters upon
It's right of eminent domain and its contractor
Is let loose upon the property holders.
The City Decides the Case.
When their property is taken the owners can
not come into court and ask an ascertainment
of Il 1,,i- o1osr,
TO the Board of Viewers. The board makes its
award and reports not to the court that ap
pointed them, but to the city. If the decision
of this board appointed on the motion of the
city, removable on the address of the city and
paid by the city. is not satisfactory, an appeal
lies from the servants to the master from the
clty's Board of Viewers to the city itself. The
city that makes the entry and inficts the in
jury sits as an appellate court TO revise the
awards against itself for its own acts, and its
award is final and conclusive unless the lot
owner is so unreasonable as to insist on being
heard in a court of law If he does this he
must make hot haste and perfect his appeal
and lodge il in the Court of Common Pleas
within ten days, and comply with series of
technical requirements over which he is in great
danger of stumbling as he goes. If he runs th /.
gauntlet safely and secures foot room in a court
of justice, the front of his lot is safe from in
vasIon for the time, but the contractor for
whose interest all these remarkable provisions
seem to work together for good, may tear up
and tear open the street on both sides of his
lot and proceed with his work, careless OF the
consequences to anybody because secure of
his own compensation in any event.
The comfort of the public, the interest of the
property owners and the pockets of the tax
payers may all suffer, but the contractor is
safe. Such being the situation of the property
owner. whose land is entered upon and appro-
priated by the city, what is the situation of his
neighbor whose land is not entered? He must
pay fer the injury the city does.
Securing Damages Under the Law.
Section requires the Board of Viewers, after
they have estimated the damages sustained by
those affected by the proposed Improvement to
assess the amount of such damages on the
property OF those whom they may find TO be
benefited and return their assessment of bene-
fits to the city. To this assessment the city is
authorized to add all the costs and expenses
including the wages of the Board of Viewers
and their expenses, and 3 per centum on the
lot owners who have been assessed to
pay the total so ascertalned. If pay
ment is not promptly made a munic-
ipal lien is entered. If the lot owner appeals
from the decision of the court il is the city itself
now sitting as an appellate court to revise
judgments in its own favor. being both plaintiff
and Judge. 1t is not satisfied with the judg-
menJ of such a tribunal He must find his way
10 a court of law by the same route laid out for
his neiEhbor who is claimant, for if upon his
appeal the claimant RECEIVERS larger sum for
the city allowed HIM, this recovery summons
the Board of Viewers to another meeting at
which they are required to add to the benefits
previously assessed a sum equal to a pro rata
share of each lot holder assessed with benefits
OF the additional sum recovered. To this the
city again adds cost and expenses and per-
centum for the City Attorney, and demands
payment for this additional sum. This may be
repeated as often as a successful claimant re-
covers increased damages
Calls II Despotic System
1t is not our duty and we have no desire to
speak OF the act of Assembly except as this
case may require it. We therefore content our
selves with saying that so much of it as relates
10 the certain fUnctions, powers and compensa-
tion of the Board@pf Viewers is IN plain viola.
tion of article 5, section Z of the constitution
and cannot be sustained. They do not relate to
any municipal function or office. but to the
jurisdiction of and practice in the courts of
law of Allegheny county They fasten upon
such of the citizens of the Commonwealth as
are property holders IN a city of the second
class a new inconvenient. injurious and despotic
system for the assessment of damages done by
the exercise of the right of eminent domain to
which citizens in other parts of the State are
not subjected. They fasten upon lotholders
Who are assessed with benefits new incon-
venleut injurious and despotic system for the
assessment of benefits to which citizens of
other parts of the State are not subjected.
If the exigencies of the case required it, an
examination of the bill of rights might afford
still another reason for holding this act to be
unconstitutional for its provisions amount to a
practical denial to the persons affected by its
provisions of that free and open access TO the
courts OF Justice which the bill of rights so
plainly guarantees to every citizen of the Com
luonwealth.
The judgments in these cases are reversed
and the assessments and all proceedings based
thereon or relating thereto are set aside.
CONSIDERED VERY NARROW.